Barbara Arfe, Julie Dockrell, Virginia Berninger-Writing Development in Children With Hearing Loss, Dyslexia, Or Oral Language Problems_ Implications for Assessment and Instruction-Oxford University P

Writing Development in Children
withHearing Loss, Dyslexia, or

OralLanguage Problems
Writing Development
in Children with
Hearing Loss,
Dyslexia, or Oral
Language Problems
Implications for Assessment and Instruction
Edited by
Barbara Arf
Julie Dockrell
Virginia Berninger
1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of
Oxford. It furthers the Universitys objective of excellence in research,
scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide.
OxfordNewYork
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala LumpurMadridMelbourneMexico CityNairobi
New DelhiShanghaiTaipeiToronto
With offices in
ArgentinaAustriaBrazilChileCzech RepublicFranceGreece
GuatemalaHungaryItalyJapanPolandPortugalSingapore
South KoreaSwitzerlandThailandTurkeyUkraineVietnam
Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press
in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by
Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, NewYork, NY 10016
Oxford University Press 2014
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior
permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law,
by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization.
Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the
Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Writing development in children with hearing loss, dyslexia, or oral language problems: implications for
assessment and instruction / edited by Barbara Arf, Julie Dockrell, and Virginia Berninger.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 9780199827282
1. ChildrenWriting. 2. Children with disabilities. 3. Child development. I. Arf, Barbara,
editor of compilation.
LB1139.W7W75 2014
371.90446dc232014004456
987654321
Printed in the United States of America
on acid-free paper
This book is dedicated to Karen, Michael, Stephen, Ray and Vanessa and all the
young writers who collaborated over the years in our studies as well as those
who participated in the writing studies of all the contributors to this volume.
Our greatest thanks goes to them, for their personal contribution to the work of
writingresearchers.
CONTENTS
Prefacexi
Contributorsxiii
Introductionxvii
PART ONE:Models and Perspectives on Writing Development
1. Cognitive Processes in Writing:AFramework 3
John R.Hayes and Virginia W. Berninger
2. Linguistic Perspectives on Writing Development 16
Ruth A. Berman
3. Two Metaphors for Writing Research and Their Implications for
WritingInstruction33
Pietro Boscolo
PART TWO:The Impact of Oral Language Problems on Written
TextProduction
Children with Hearing Loss

4. Spelling in Deaf Children with Cochlear Implants:Implications
forInstruction45
Heather Hayes, Rebecca Treiman, and Ann E.Geers
5. Spelling Acquisition in French Children with Cochlear Implants:
ACase-StudyInvestigation55
Sophie Bouton and Pascale Col
6. Spelling Abilities in Hebrew-Speaking Children with Hearing Loss 70
Ronit Levie, Dorit Ravid, Tal Freud, and Tova Most
7. The Influence of Verbal Working Memory on Writing Skills in Children
withHearing Loss 85
Barbara Arf, Federica Nicolini, and Elena Pozzebon
8. Composing Academic Essays:Using Dictation and Technology to
ImproveFluency100
John Albertini, Michael Stinson, and Argiroula Zangana
Children with Oral Language Difficulties

9. Examining Early Spelling and Writing Skills:AComparative Analysis of
Kindergarteners with Speech and Oral Language Impairments and Their
Typically Developing Peers 112
Cynthia S.Puranik, Stephanie Al Otaiba, and Feifei Ye
10. Morphological Awareness and Spelling Difficulties in
French-SpeakingChildren130
Monique Snchal
11. Writing Abilities of Pre-adolescents with and without Language/Learning
Impairment in Restructuring an Informative Text 143
Orna Davidi and Ruth A.Berman
12. Writing Development of Spanish-English Bilingual Students with
Language Learning Disabilities:New Directions in Constructing
IndividualProfiles158
Robin L.Danzak and Elaine R.Silliman
13. Written Narratives from French and English Speaking Children with
LanguageImpairment176
Judy S.Reilly, Josie Bernicot, Thierry Olive, Jol Uz, Beverly Wulfeck,
Monik Favart, and Mark Appelbaum
Children with Dyslexia
14. A Review of Dyslexia and Expressive Writing in English 188
Emma Sumner, Vincent Connelly, and Anna L.Barnett
15. Written Spelling in French Children with Dyslexia 201
Sverine Casalis
16. Written Spelling in Spanish-Speaking Children with Dyslexia 214
Francisca Serrano and Sylvia Defior
17. The Writing Development of Brazilian Children with Dyslexia:
AnEvidence-Based Clinical Approach 228
Jane Correa
18. Expressive Writing in Swedish 15-Year-Olds with Reading and
WritingDifficulties244
sa Wengelin, Roger Johansson, and Victoria Johansson
19. Improving Expressive Writing in Children with Learning Disabilities:
TheEffects of a Training Focused on Revision 257
Martina Pedron, Anna Maria Re, Chiara Mirandola, and Cesare Cornoldi
PART THREE:Linking Research to Practice in Oral and Written Language
Assessment and Intervention
20. Integrating Language Assessment, Instruction, and Intervention in an
Inclusive Writing Lab Approach 273
Nickola Wolf Nelson
[ v i i i ] Contents
21. Integrating Oral and Written Language into a New Practice Model:
Perspectives of an Oral Language Researcher 301
Elaine R.Silliman
22. Integrating Writing and Oral Language Disorders: Perspectives of a
WritingResearcher313
Vincent Connelly
23. The Role of Oral Language in Developing Written Language Skills:
Questionsfor European Pedagogy? 325
Julie E. Dockrell and Barbara Arf
Bridging Research and Practice: Conclusions 336
Index343
C o n t e n ts [ i x ]
P R E FA C E
Today, in addition to the 10% of children who do not have access to schooling of any kind, we
know that millions more are in school but are not achieving minimal levels of learning
(Bernard, 1999, p.v).
Language problems are considered to be a significant barrier to learning, participating in academic and professional activities, and developing as a person. Spoken
language and written language are representational systems, which allow us to
understand the world and express our views and ideas. Both reading and writing
are tools of personal empowerment and a means of social and cultural development
(UNESCO, 2013). Educational systems should equip children with writing skills
which allow them to engage in wider communication and progress in the workforce. However, children with oral language problems frequently fail to develop
developmentally appropriate writing skills, and, as such, are at disadvantage.
This handbook focuses on the way oral language acts as a barrier to the production of written texts and the strategies that can be used to ameliorate these problems. To locate the childrens problems with language alone is insufficient. Such an
explanation fails to clarify all the mechanisms which limit childrens text production and how oral language problems may interact with the structure of the oral and
written language that the child is learning.
Improving the quality of education children and young adults with oral language and speech problems receive is the ultimate goal. To achieve this goal, we
need to understand how the language learning mechanisms interact with (a)the
linguistic, social, and cultural factors that characterize the oral language learning
environment and (b)the task and motivational factors that characterize the written language learning environment (Boscolo, c hapter 3, this volume; Danzak &
Silliman, c hapter12, this volume). Models and views of writing development that
we present in Part I of this volume (Hayes & Berninger; Berman and Boscolo)
underpin this analysis, which is presented in Part II. Chapters in Part II describe the
main characteristics of writing difficulties in children with hearing loss, speech and
language impairment, and dyslexia. Authors from three continents and nine countries contributed their research work to extend our understanding of the problems
that the children face. The product is a rich overview of writing problems across
different types of oral language difficulties in different languages.
Another important theme of this volume is oral language and writing assessment. Part III develops this issue with links to intervention. Berman and Connelly
show how the measures we examine (such as syntactic complexity, word diversity
and writing fluency) must consider both the nature of the language learners profile
and the features of the language. Some measures may be more sensitive to improvements and developmental changes in one language and less in another language,
requiring language-specific scaffolding (Reilly etal., c hapter13, this volume).
Finally, decisions about the assessment of the childrens writing must consider
the most sensitive measures for the question at hand, be that static or dynamic
assessment or standardized or natural tasks. Nelson suggests that dynamic assessment, at least in situations where assessment is linked to intervention, is the more
powerful tool. Some authors emphasize the importance of considering authentic
and meaningful writing practices in writing assessment (Boscolo, chapter 3, and
Silliman, c hapter21) and to examine childrens ability to use language across different genres (Danzak & Silliman, c hapter12; Silliman, c hapter21). Other authors
present a more cognitive approach to language and writing assessment where
skills are assessed by standardized tests.
The authors have worked with us to present their arguments succinctly and draw
out implications for researchers and practitioners alike. We would like to thank all
the authors for their patient and hard work on the chapters. We have learned much
from all authors and hope our readers will learn from and value their work.
Barbara Arf, Julie Dockrell, and Virginia W.Berninger
REFERENCES
UNESCO (2013). Literacies for the 21st century. Downloaded from:http://unesdoc.unesco.
org/images/0022/002230/223029E.pdf
Bernard, A. (1999). The child-friendly school:a summary. Paper prepared for UNICEF.
[ x i i ] Preface
CONTRIBUTORS
John Albertini
National Technical Institute for the
Deaf
Rochester Institute of Technology
Rochester, NewYork
Stephanie Al Otaiba
Department of Teaching and Learning
Southern Methodist University
Dallas, Texas
Mark Appelbaum
Department of Psychology
University of California, San Diego
San Diego, California
Barbara Arf
Department of Developmental
Psychology and Socialisation
University of Padova
Padova, Italy
Anna L.Barnett
Oxford Brookes University
Oxford, United Kingdom
Josie Bernicot
Universit de Poitiers-CNRS
Poitiers, France
Virginia W.Berninger
Department of Educational Psychology
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington
Ruth A. Berman
Department of Linguistics
Tel Aviv University
Tel Aviv, Israel
Pietro Boscolo
Department of Developmental
Psychology and Socialization
Padova, Italy
Sophie Bouton
Laboratoire de Neurosciences Cognitives
cole Normale Suprieure
Paris, France
Sverine Casalis
URECA
Universit de Lille
Villeneuve-dAscq, France
Pascale Col
Laboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive
Aix-Marseille Universit
Marseille, France
Vincent Connelly
Oxford Brookes University
Oxford, United Kingdom
Cesare Cornoldi
Department of General Psychology
Padova, Italy
Jane Correa
Instituto de Psicologia
Universidade Federal do Rio
de Janeiro
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Robin L.Danzak
Department of Speech-Language
Pathology
Sacred Heart University
Fairfield, Connecticut
Orna Davidi
School of Cultural Studies
Tel Aviv University
Tel Aviv, Israel
Sylvia Defior
Facultad de Psicologia
University of Granada
Granada, Spain
Julie E. Dockrell
Department of Psychology and
Human Development
Institute of Education
London, United Kingdom
Monik Favart
Poitiers, France
[ x i v ] Contributors
Tal Freud
Department of Communications
Disorders and School of Education
Tel Aviv University
Tel Aviv, Israel
Ann E.Geers
Dallas Cochlear Implant Program,
Callier Advances Research Center
University of Texas at Dallas
Dallas, Texas
Heather Hayes
Program in Audiology and
Communication Sciences
Washington University School of
Medicine
St. Louis, Missouri
John R.Hayes
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Roger Johansson
Centre for Languages and
Literature
Lund University
Lund, Sweden
Victoria Johansson
Centre for Languages and
Literature
Lund University
Lund, Sweden
Ronit Levie
Disorders and School of
Education
Tel Aviv University
Tel Aviv, Israel
Chiara Mirandola
Padova, Italy
Tova Most
Tel Aviv University
Tel Aviv, Israel
Nickola Wolf Nelson
Department of Speech Pathology and
Audiology
Western Michigan University
Kalamazoo, Michigan
Federica Nicolini
Servizio di Audiologia e Foniatria
Universit di PadovaTreviso
Treviso, Italy
Thierry Olive
Poitiers, France
Martina Pedron
Padova, Italy
Elena Pozzebon
Servizio di Audiologia e Foniatria
Universit di PadovaTreviso
Treviso, Italy
Cynthia S.Puranik
Department of Communication
Science and Disorders
University of Pittsburgh
Dorit Ravid
Tel Aviv University
Tel Aviv, Israel
Anna Maria Re
Padova, Italy
Judy S. Reilly
San Diego State University
Monique Snchal
Carleton University
Ottawa, Ontario
Francisca Serrano
Facultad de Psicologia
University of Granada
Granada, Spain
Elaine R.Silliman
Sciences and Disorders
University of South Florida
Tampa, Florida
Michael Stinson
National Technical Institute for the
Deaf
Rochester Institute of Technology
Rochester, NewYork
Emma Sumner
Goldsmiths, University of London
London, United Kingdom
C o n t r i b u to r s [ x v ]
Rebecca Treiman
Washington University in St. Louis
St. Louis, Missouri
Jol Uz
CRTL-Centre Hospitalier H.Laborit
Poitiers, France
sa Wengelin
Department of Swedish
University of Gothenburg
Gteborg, Sweden
Beverly Wulfeck
School of Speech, Language, and
Hearing Sciences
San Diego State University
[ x v i ] Contributors
Feifei Ye
Science and Disorders
University of Pittsburgh
Argiroula Zangana
Institute for Language and Speech
Processing
Athens, Greece
INTRODUCTION
n his Nobel Prize lecture, V.S. Naipaul, described the difficulties he experienced
growing up in a world that he initially did not understand and explains how he
progressively discovered and understood this world:When Ibecame a writer those
areas of darkness around me as a child became my subjects. The land; the aborigines; the New World; the colony; the history; India; [..] knowledge and ideas came
to me [..], principally from my writing (2013). Writing is a wonderful tool, which
has a unique role in our development. Through writing people communicate with
each other and themselves, learn, discover themselves and build their identities and
establish roles in society. Yet writing is also an extremely complex activity, an activity that is a struggle for many students and professionals alike (Dockrell, 2014).
Difficulties with written expression are currently one of the most common learning problems, involving between 6.9% and 14.9% of the school aged population,
depending on the formula used to identify written expression disorders (Katusic,
Colligan, Weaver, & Barbaresi, 2009). For children and young people with difficulties related to oral language the prevalence of writing difficulties increases significantly (Mayes & Calhoun, 2006), yet there is much to learn about the relationship
between oral and written language.
For students with oral language difficulties text production can be particularly
challenging, yet there have been few attempts to draw together the impact of different oral language problems on the production of written text. This book aims to
illuminate the nature of the writing process through its relationship with oral language and oral language difficulties, and to understand how language systems and
educational contexts may contribute to shape this relationship in different ways.
Our aim is to provide a bridge between research and practice by presenting current
research evidence to help guide and support practitioners and researchers alike.
Models of writing represent the framework through which the writing process and
writing difficulties are examined and understood. Over the last 30years psychologists have studied the ways in which the cognitive system supports the writing process and how writing changes and develops over time (Hayes & Flower, 1980). This
research has led to the construction of models of expert writing (Hayes & Flower,
1986)and models of writing development (Berninger, 2012).
Cognitive models capture part of the writing process by focusing on the information processing demands that are placed on the writer. But the writer produces
text within a social context that can support text production or can present specific
demands on the writer. The contexts in which writing occurs and the values and
meanings writing has for the writer are an important component of our understanding of writing and writing problems (see Danzak & Silliman, chapter12, this
volume).
In the first part of this book we present three different perspectives from which
writing difficulties can be understood. In c hapter1, Hayes and Berninger present
a new cognitive framework for understanding the writing process. Berman, in
chapter2, discusses how a linguistic perspective should guide our research work,
analyses of written expression and understanding of developmental difficulties.
In addition, Berman uses cross-linguistic data to broaden our conceptualization of the writing process. Boscolo, in chapter3, discusses the theoretical and
instructional implications of a cognitive perspective and a socio-cultural perspective to our understanding of the writing process. Research from a cognitive perspective has increased our understanding of the processes which underpin text
production, resulting in teaching and training packages, which can be used to
improve performance. However, to impact on learning and on an effective and
authentic use of writing, we also need to understand writing as a social act. Some
of the chapters in the second and third part of this volume specifically address
this issue (see Danzak & Silliman, c hapter12, Nelson, c hapter20, and Silliman,
chapter21). This entails both an understanding of the context and situations in
which the written message is produced and of the written text as a product of an
authentic communication act. As Boscolo emphasizes, this component is often
forgotten in writing instruction.
The chapters in this book consider situations where the language system has
been compromised, and present current research on writing difficulties in the area
of deafness, language impairment and dyslexia. Clinicians and educators often work
with children who have these difficulties, but struggle in identifying the nature of
their writing problems. In many cases problems with language and writing result
from a complex mixture of cognitive and linguistic difficulties, which are addressed
by this handbook.
The book focuses on the ways in which aspects of the language system can
impact on oral/written language difficulties:(a)difficulties with oral and written
language learning which are caused by a difficult access to speech-sounds (deafness) ( Johnson & Goswami, 2010); (b)difficulties with oral and written language
learning, which involves the language learning mechanisms necessary for developing grammatical and semantic and pragmatic linguistic representations of spoken language (as in Specific Language Impairment) (Bishop & Snowling, 2004;
Dockrell & Connelly, 2013; Dockrell, Lindsay, & Connelly, 2009); (c)difficulties
with oral and written language learning that selectively involve the mechanisms
required to process phonological information and the phonological structure of
[ x v i i i ] Introduction
words (such us in some cases of dyslexia, see Bishop & Snowling, 2004; Peterson
& Pennington, 2012).
A challenge for both practitioners and researchers is the plethora of terms used to
describe a child who has a specific set of problems. Different labels are used to refer
to the same group of children both within and across countries (Dockrell, Lindsay,
Letchford, & Mackie, 2006). Labels also often identify heterogeneous groups of
children. For example, specific language impairment often includes children who
have both problems with the structural aspects of the language system and problems with social communication (Conti-Ramsden & Botting, 1999). Sometimes a
group identified for research purposes does not reflect the reality in practice or illustrates significant comorbidity with other problems (between dyslexia and dyscalculia, or dyslexia and other reading difficulties, Wengelin etal., c hapter18; Pedron
etal., chapter19; language impairment and speech sound disorders, Puranik etal.,
chapter9; dyslexia and language impairment, Peterson & Pennington, 2012). These
differences in nomenclature can be problematic for the field, but detailed descriptions of the population under study allow informed comparisons. In this book the
terminology used by the authors reflects both their country of origin and research
focus. In each case details of the population will help the reader establish how the
research can be embedded within their own practice or research framework. The
variety of labels and definitions used in this book also represent the complexity of
identifying and understanding oral and written language difficulties. As Davidi and
Berman (chapter 11) and Danzak and Silliman (chapter 12) highlight, the term
Language Learning Disability emphasizes the linkages between spoken language
and literacy learning and suggests that we are examining a learning problem, not
just a linguistic problem, a conclusion that many of the chapters illustrate.
Part II provides studies that consider writing at different levels, word, sentence,
text and discourse. To date, most research work in the field of written language problems has focused on the single word level, spelling. Spelling is important because it
is the code writers need to discover and use to write (Ehri, 2005), but also because
it represents one of the greatest constraints to writing. Children who do not master spelling processes continue to meet difficulties in text production (Berninger,
Nielsen, Abbott, Wijsman, & Raskind, 2008)and problems in mastering spelling
taxes the writing process such that children not only produce short and inaccurate
texts, but avoid writing, leading to further delays in writing development (Graham
& Harris, 2000).
Various chapters in this book focus on spelling and spelling difficulties, in the
section on deafness (Hayes etal., c hapter4, Bouton & Col, chapter5, and Levie
etal., chapter6), oral language difficulties (Puranik etal., chapter9, and Snchal,
chapter10) and dyslexia (Casalis, chapter15, and Serrano & Defior, c hapter16).
The chapters on spelling show how children with writing problems make use of
regularities in the language to spell words, in a similar fashion to typically developing children. Different forms of language knowledge (phonological, orthographic,
and morphological) are exploited by these children to discover and use these
I n t r o d u ct i o n [ x i x ]
regularities. For example, Hayes etal. in c hapter4, Levie etal. (chapter6), Arf
etal. (chapter7), Snchal (chapter10) and Casalis (chapter15), emphasize the
role of morphology in spelling in combination with phonology and orthography.
These findings are important since they are derived from studies on different language systems (Hebrew, French, English and Italian) and on different populations
(children with deafness, oral language problems and dyslexia).
As spelling is also a component of text production, spelling difficulties are also
treated in chapters which focus is on text production (see for example Arf etal.,
chapter7, Reilly etal., c hapter13, Sumner etal., c hapter14, and Wengelin etal.,
chapter18). Difficulties with text production are related to difficulties with spelling
in children with dyslexia (Sumner etal., chapter14 and Wengelin etal., chapter18),
children who are deaf (Arf etal., c hapter7) and in children with oral language
problems (Reilly etal., chapter13). However, writing and written communication
goes beyond spelling, involving the processing of words, sentences, ideas, and discourse structures (Arf & Boscolo, 2006; Berninger, Nielsen, Abbott, Wijsman, &
Raskind, 2008; Dockrell, Lindsay, Connelly, & Mackie, 2007). Analyses of spelling
alone fails to capture all the components in writing that are linked to oral language,
and the ways in which writing develops over time.
Many chapters in this book demonstrate how difficulties in writing are often
at a grammatical and discourse level (Albertini etal.,chapter8, Davidi & Berman,
chapter 11, Danzak and Silliman, c hapter 12, Reilly et al., chapter 13, Wengelin
et al., chapter 18). These writing difficulties are discussed as both an expression
of problems with the development of oral language knowledge (e.g., grammatical
morphology, see Reilly etal., chapters13) and in terms of basic language learning
mechanisms affecting concurrently both oral and written language production (see
for example, Arf etal., chapter7).
Some of the chapters in part II (in particular Arf et al., chapter 7, Davidi &
Berman, chapter11, Danzak & Silliman, c hapter12, and Reilly etal., chapter13)
point to the value of multi-level text analyses. Although this is an extremely complex and time consuming activity, examining written expression, and its difficulties, at word, sentence and text level is a particularly useful way to capture variation
in writing and to identify strengths and challenges in the writing performance of
children who show language problems. The multilevel analysis of writing can also
provide a more comprehensive evaluation of the ways in which language problems
at word (spelling and vocabulary), sentence (grammar) and text (discourse) level
interact in the production of the written text (Puranik, Lombardino, & Altmann,
2008; Wagner etal., 2011).
Implications of this research for assessment and intervention are discussed in
Part III. Difficulties in learning to write pose challenges for both the writer and
the teacher, in particular when teachers and their students are building on weak
oral language skills. The final chapters in the book discuss how the integration of
oral and written language in assessment and intervention can change our ways of
analyzing writing problems, providing appropriate instruction and empowering
[ x x ] Introduction
learning environments. The integration of oral and written language is examined

in the context of instructional and educational intervention (Nelson, chapter20),
in terms of future instructional approaches (Silliman, c hapter21) and at a more
conceptual level, as the result of progress in the field of writing research (Connelly,
chapter22). Finally, Dockrell and Arf (chapter23) discuss the pedagogical questions that emerge from this volume.
REFERENCES
Arf, B., & Boscolo, P. (2006) Causal coherence in deaf and hearing students written narratives.
Discourse Processes, 42, 271300.
Berninger, V. (Ed.) (2012). Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to
cognitive psychology. NewYork, NY:Psychology Press/Taylor Francis Group.
Berninger, V.W., Nielsen, K.H., Abbott, R.D., Wijsman, E., & Raskind, W. (2008). Writing
problems in developmental dyslexia: Under-recognized and under-treated. Journal of
School Psychology, 46(1). doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.11.008
Bishop, D. V. M., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Developmental dyslexia and specific language
impairment:Same or different? Psychological Bulletin, 130(6), 858886.
Conti-Ramsden, G., & Botting, N. (1999). Classification of children with specific language
impairment: Longitudinal considerations. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing
Research, 42(5), 11951204.
Dockrell, J. E. (in press). Developmental Variations in the Production of Written
Text: Challenges for Students who Struggle with Writing. In Stone, Silliman,
Ehren, & Wallach, (Eds.), Handbook of Language and literacy, (2nd ed.). Guildford
Publications.
Dockrell, J.E., & Connelly, V. (2013). The role of oral language in u nderpinning the text generation difficulties in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Research in
Reading. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01550.x
Dockrell, J.E., Lindsay, G., & Connelly, V. (2009). The impact of specific language impairment
on adolescents written text. Exceptional Children, 75(4), 427446.
Dockrell, J.E., Lindsay, G., Connelly, V., & Mackie, C. (2007). Constraints in the production
of written text in children with specific language impairments. Exceptional Children, 73,
147164.
Dockrell, J.E., Lindsay, G., Letchford, B., & Mackie, C. (2006). Educational provision for children with specific speech and language difficulties:perspectives of speech and language
therapy service managers. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders,
41(4), 423440. doi:10.1080/13682820500442073|issn 1368-2822
Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 9(2), 167188. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4
Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 312. doi:10.1207/
s15326985ep3501_2
Hayes, J., & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organisation of writing processes. In L.
Gregg & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 330). Hillsdale,
NJ:Erlbaum.
Hayes, J, & Flower, L. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41,
11061113.
I n t r o d u ct i o n [ x x i ]
Johnson, C., & Goswami, U. (2010). Phonological awareness, vocabulary, and reading in deaf
children with cochlear implants. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 53(2),
237261. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0139)
Katusic, S.K., Colligan, R.C., Weaver, A.L., & Barbaresi, W.J. (2009). The forgotten learning disability: Epidemiology of written-language disorder in a population-based
birth cohort (1976-1982), Rochester, Minnesota. Pediatrics, 123(5). doi:10.1542/
peds.2008-2098
Mayes, S. D., & Calhoun, S. L. (2006). Frequency of reading, math, and writing disabilities in children with clinical disorders. Learning and Individual Differences, 16(2).
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2005.07.004
Naipaul, V.S. - Nobel Lecture: Two Worlds. Nobelprize.org. Nobel Media AB 2013. Web.
1 Jul 2013. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2001/
naipaul-lecture-e.html
Peterson, R. L., & Pennington, B. F. (2012). Developmental dyslexia. Lancet, 379(9830),
19972007. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(12)60198-6
Puranik, C. S., Lombardino, L. J., & Altmann, L. J. P. (2008). Assessing the microstructure
of written language using a retelling paradigm. American Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology, 17(2), 107120.
Wagner, R.K., Puranik, C.S., Foorman, B., Foster, E., Wilson, L.G., Tschinkel, E., & Kantor,
P. T. (2011). Modeling the development of written language. Reading and Writing,
24(2), 203220. doi:10.1007/s11145-010-9266-7
[ x x i i ] Introduction
PART ONE
Models and Perspectives on

WritingDevelopment
CHAPTER1
Cognitive Processes in Writing

A Framework
JOHN R . H AYES AND VIRGINI A W. BERNINGER
n this chapter, we present a framework relating the cognitive processes that writers in general use when they create written texts, the mental resources that these
cognitive processes can draw on, and the task environment in which these cognitive processes operate. We begin by clarifying how this approach to cognition contrasts with that most familiar to professionals who work with individuals who have
sensory, motor, or language disabilities that affect their oral or written expression.
We then explain the benefits of a theoretical framework of cognition specific to
the writing process and describe the details of this framework. Finally, we encourage professionals and researchers who work with individuals who have disabilities
related to hearing, speech, and language to adapt this cognitive framework to those
individuals disabilities and capabilities, evaluate the adaptations, and share the
results. Such results should extend knowledge of cognition during writing for writers in general to writers with specific sensory, motor, or language limitations.
Typically, IQ tests are used to assess cognition in individuals with a variety of
disabilities. IQ stands for intelligence quotient, which is not what these tests really
measure. To begin with, they do not assess all aspects of human intelligence, but
rather specific kinds of cognitive abilities, for example, verbal reasoning or nonverbal reasoning, which are related to school achievement or specific kinds of
vocational aptitude. More importantly, they have not yielded quotients (mental
age divided by chronological age) ever since standard scores were developed in
the middle of the last century to compare an individuals current score to others of
the same age and also the scores of the same individual across time. As such, these
tests may be useful indices of levels to which specific kinds of cognitive abilities are
currently developed and their stability across development. They do not assess the
specific cognitive operations during actual listening, speaking, reading, or writing,
four language tasks that differ in which sensory or motor systems they engage and
how cognitive systems are accessed and utilized. Language by ear (listening comprehension), language by eye (reading comprehension), language by mouth (oral
expression of ideas), and language by hand (written expression of ideas) are separable language systems that may function together in integrated ways and draw on
both common and unique processes (Berninger & Abbott, 2010).
Thus, a framework that specifies writing-specific cognitive processes and operations provides useful information that goes beyond what IQ tests provide and is
more relevant to planning instructional treatment to improve the written expression of ideas, which is not fully identical with understanding ideas in others spoken or written language or expressing ones own ideas orally. We hope that this
framework will be useful to those who work with or study special populations of
writers who may be deaf, have difficulty processing the speech they hear or producing speech others can understand, or have specific disabilities in learning to
understand or construct spoken or written texts with words, syntax, and discourse
structures.
The framework, based on over three decades of research on typical writing, is
presented graphically in Figure1.1. The framework has three levels. The bottom,
or resource, level represents general cognitive resources that writers may draw on
as they compose. The middle, or process, level represents the cognitive processes
that writers may use to create texts together with the task environment in which
these processes operate. The top, or control, level represents the factors that control
operations at the process level.
THE FRAMEWORK
Resource Level
We have included four resources at the resource level:attention, long-term memory, working memory, and reading. These are resources that are used by many
activities including writing. By attention we mean the ability to maintain focus on a
task in the face of distraction. This ability is also often referred to as executive function or executive control and is a resource that the top-level control processes
can draw upon. Focused attention (inhibit what is not relevant) is often measured
by the Stroop task (Stroop, 1935); the participant is asked to name the print color
of a sequence of color words printed in a different color than the color named by
the word. For example, the participant may see the word RED printed in green, the
word BLUE printed in yellow, and so on. Many find it difficult to say the print colors
(e.g., green, yellow) and resist reading the distracting color word (e.g., red, blue).
Performance on the Stroop task and related tasks of attention and executive function improves from early childhood into the 20s (Diamond, 2006). Development
[ 4 ] Part I:Models and Perspectives on Writing Development
Planner
Task
Initiator
Control
Level
Writing Schemas
Evaluator
Writing
Processes
Proposer
Transcriber
Translator
Process
Level
Task
Environment
Collaborators
& Critks
Transcribing
Technology
Task Materials
Attention
Working
Memory
Text-WrittenSo-Far
Long-Term
Memory
Resource
Level
Reading
Figure1.1.
A framework representing the organization of cognitive processes involved in writing. Note: The
model does not include a revision process. We view revision not as a writing process but rather as a
specialized writing task that makes use of the processes in the writing modelproposing, translating, planning, reading, and so forthto replace an earlier text. We have included arrows to indicate
some relations between processes but, to avoid visual clutter, we have not indicated all potential
relations. For example, although there are important relations among evaluating, reading and the
text-written-so-far, these relations have not been marked with arrows. Similarly, relations between
the TWSF and translation, long-term memory and proposing, writing schemas and writing processes, and many other relations are not marked.
of the writers attention is a resource that enables executive function control and
may have an important impact on the writers choice of writing strategy.
Long-term memory is a complex resource that stores the individuals knowledge
of facts, events, motor planning, control, and execution skills, letter form access and
production skills, and language including vocabulary, spelling, grammar/syntax,
and discourse schema, all of which are sources of knowledge that are important for
competent writing. Chenoweth and Hayes (2001) showed that the fluency with
which a person writes in a language depends critically on how many years of experience the person has with the language. Underdeveloped spelling knowledge and
illegible or nonautomatic handwriting may also interfere with writing development
in the first six grades (e.g., Berninger, Yates, Cartwright, Rutberg, Remy, & Abbott,
1992; Berninger, Cartwright, Yates, Swanson, & Abbott, 1994)and even in older
writers (Hayes & Chenoweth, 2006). Writers with ample knowledge in long-term
memory about the topic they are writing about produce essays of higher quality
and more quickly and with less effort than the less informed writers (Caccamise,
1987; Dansac & Alamargot, 1999; Voss, Vesonder, & Spilich, 1980).
Working memory is a memory system designed to store the required information while the cognitive operations are performed to carry out a task. For example,
Cognitive Processes in Writing:AFr amework[5]
if we were to multiply 2 three-digit numbers mentally, we would need to remember

several lists of numbersthe partial productsand, in addition, we would need
memory for carrying out the arithmetic processesmultiplication and addition.
Since Daneman and Carpenter (1980) developed the first measure of individual
differences in working memory, measures of different kinds of working memory
have been created (Ransdell & Levy, 1999). Research indicates that interfering with
working memory resources can reduce the fluency and quality of writing (Daiute,
1984; Fayol, Largy, & Lamaire, 1994; Chenoweth & Hayes, 2003; Hayes, 2009).
Reading, which is another written language skill, is also an important resource for
writers. Kaufer, Hayes, and Flower (1986) found that adult writers spent a substantial portion of their composing time reading the text they had just written. Much of
this rereading focused on the sentence currently under construction. For example,
a writer who had written down the first part of a sentence often reread the sentence
parts already written before completing the sentence. Such rereading (reviewing to
monitor what has been written so far to decide whether to revise as well as what to
write next) may serve to promote construction of cohesive text. When writers are
composing from sources, they typically read and reread the source texts written by
others (Alamargot, Dansac, Chesnet, & Fayol, 2007). Similarly, editing and revising typically involves the repeated reading of the target text the writer has written
(Hayes, Flower, Schriver, Stratman, & Carey, 1987).
These resources may also interact with each other. For example, Hyn, Lorch,
and Kaakinen (2002) found that writers with high working-memory capacity construct more accurate summaries of source texts in a writing-from-sources task than
do writers with low working memory capacity.
Process Level
Protocol studies (Kaufer, et al., 1986; Chenoweth & Hayes, 2001) showed that
adults typically compose texts in language bursts averaging 612 words in length
depending on the skill of the writer. These bursts consist of language that the writer
proposes for inclusion in the text. In the protocols, the bursts were separated by
pauses that often included statements suggesting planning of the next fragment or
evaluation of the text just written. Chenoweth and Hayes (2001) proposed that in
adult writers language bursts are produced through the interaction of four cognitive processes:a proposer, a translator, an evaluator, and transcriber. See Figure1.1.
The function of the proposer is to suggest a package of ideas for inclusion in the
text and to pass that package on to the translator. The proposer can take input from
the planner, from the task environment, from long-term memory, and from the text
written so far. Ideas suggested by the proposer are in nonverbal form.
The translator takes ideas from the proposer and represents them as grammatical
strings of language; that is, it translates nonverbal ideas into a verbal form of expression (Chenoweth & Hayes, 2003). The translator may also take language strings
presented in visual or auditory form that were coded in verbal long-term memory
as language and transform them into new language strings (Hayes & Chenoweth,
2007). Research by Chenoweth and Hayes (2001, 2003) suggests that the fluency
with which the translator operates depends on the writers linguistic experience and
on the amount of verbal working memory that is available to the writer. A series of
studies by Hayes and his colleagues (summarized in Hayes, 2009) attributes the
fact that texts are composed in such a choppy fashion, that is, by putting together
a sequence of fragmentary language bursts, to the high demands that the translator makes on available working memory resources. For adults, at least, translation
appears to be the bottleneck limiting fluency.
The transcriber takes the grammatical strings produced by the translator and
turns them into written text. For beginning and developing writers in cross-sectional
studies (Berninger etal., 1992; Berninger etal., 1994)transcription (handwriting
and spelling), if not age appropriate, may pose special challenges for the translation
process. Of these, spelling had the most consistent longitudinal influences across
adjacent grade levels from first to seventh grade on written composing (Abbott,
Berninger, & Fayol, 2010). For those who initially struggle with transcription, studies have shown that, with appropriate instruction and practice, these tasks become
more automated and demand fewer cognitive resources (e.g., Berninger & Amtmann,
2003). However, Hayes and Chenoweth (2006) found that even in adults the process of transcription still places demands on working-memory resources.
The evaluator can examine the outputs of any of the other processes and pass
judgment on their adequacy. For example, the evaluator may reject an idea that
has been proposed before it is translated into language; it may reject a translated
language string before it is transcribed, and it may demand the revision of already
transcribed language. Hayes (2011) suggests that the evaluation process may be
minimal or absent in some of the writing strategies that very young writers may
adopt. However, these same children may respond to specific requests to evaluate
texts even if they may not do so in their self-regulated, independent writing.
The Task Environment
The task environment includes the immediate social and physical factors that influence the writing processes. The social task environment includes concurrent inputs
from collaborators and critics (lets do this, why did you do that?), a teachers
admonition to finish up quickly, or simply the background of conversation in a
classroom or workplace. Because we represent the social factors as the immediate
social environment (what people are doing right now in the writers presence) one
might argue that we have left out the very important influences that society and
culture have on the writer. We dont think this is true. We believe that these influences are represented in the writers long-term memory and in the task environment. Socially determined factors such as the social and physical structure of the
Cognitive Processes in Writing:AFr amework [ 7 ]
classroom and the nature of the writing technology are all represented in the task
environment. Long-term memory contains the writers knowledge of genre and of
writing strategies. It contains the writers understanding of how audiences are likely
to respond to particular language. It contains the writers episodic knowledge:the
memory of the writers interaction with the social and physical world. If the influence of society and culture were not represented in long-term memory and the task
environment, it is not clear how they could affect the writer.
The physical task environment includes the task materials, the transcribing
technology, and the text written so far (TWSF). The task materials might include
a written assignment sheet or, in the case of a writing-from-sources task, graphics
and/or texts that the writer must refer to while completing the assignment. In a
second-language writing task, the task materials might include a dictionary.
The nature of the transcription technology can influence the conduct of the writing
task in substantial ways. Researchers have investigated whether children produce longer texts of better quality if they dictate text orally rather than writing them on paper.
For example, De La Paz and Graham (1995) found that, if primary school children
dictated rather than wrote their texts, text quality improved significantly. Connelly,
Gee, and Walsh (2007) compared fifth and sixth graders essays written by hand and
by keyboard. Students wrote significantly faster by hand than keyboard. Handwritten
essays were significantly superior to typed essays on six analytic scoring categories: (1)
ideas and development, (2) organization, (3) unity and coherence, (4) sentence structure, (5) grammar, and (6) punctuation. Similarly, Hayes and Berninger (2010) found
that children in second, fourth, and sixth grades proposed more ideas for inclusion in
an essay when they transcribed the ideas by hand rather than by keyboard. One would
expect that writing in the interactive social media, for example, Twitter and Facebook,
might share more features with conversation than with formal school writing. Other
research found that practice within a particular transcription mode (handwriting or
typing) improved writing in that mode. Handwriting practice improved childrens
writing of high quality texts by hand (Jones & Christensen, 1999). For eighth and
ninth graders with low typing skills, typing practice improved the quality of typed
texts, but not the length or quality of handwritten texts (Christensen, 2004).
Kaufer et al. (1986) found that as college and graduate students composed, they frequently re-read to TWSF. Most of this re-reading (more than 80%) involved re-reading
the early parts of the sentence currently under construction. For example, while composing an essay about a trip, a writer may write down that their experiences on the
trip to Asia made... and pause. Then, while attempting to complete this sentence, the
writer may re-read the written fragment one or more times. Usually this was followed
by an addition extending the initial fragment. For example, the writer might add me
appreciate... and pause again. In about one fourth of cases, re-reading was followed by
a revision. For example, the writer might replace made with helped me to. . . These
observations suggest that the re-reading of the TWSF serves a coordinating function.
Since, as we noted earlier, sentences are composed in parts, it is possible that writers
may lose track of text features such as tone, number, and tense as they move from
composing one part to the next. Re-reading the TWSF may well help the adult writer
to keep such features consistent across sentence parts and thus to maintain text coherence. Hayes (2011) has suggested that attention to the TWSF may develop over the
school years and contribute to the increasing coherence of writers texts as they mature.
He also suggests that very young writers may ignore the content of the TWSF and
attend only to its quantity using the quantity to determine if they have written enough.
Control Level
The task initiator may be a teacher who assigns an essay in class, a boss who assigns
a writing task at work, or it may be the writer herself who decides to write a story
or a journal entry. Usually, the task initiator will influence the planner by specifying
the topic, the audience, or other features of the text to be written.
The planner is responsible for setting goals for the writing activity. These goals
may be quite simple in young writers. For example, the primary school students
may start with the single goal of writing about a particular topic. More advanced
writers may plan a sequence of topics and subtopics together with the sequence in
which these topics should be addressed. Still more advanced writers may set goals
for tone and the intended impact on the audience.
Writing schemas represent the writers beliefs about the properties that the text
to be produced should have (genre knowledge) and also beliefs about how to go
about producing that text (strategic knowledge). Writing schemas vary from writer
to writer and change within writers as the writers develop. The strategies specified
by the writing schemas determine the selection of writing processes, how the writing processes operate and how the writing processes interact with each other and
with the task environment.
A recent study illustrates the relation between writing schema, the writing processes, and text structure. Hayes (2011) analyzed the structure of a sample of first to
ninth grade childrens expository texts (from Fuller, 1995)and concluded that most
could be produced by one of three strategies. The simplest strategy, that Hayes called
flexible-focus, might be thought of as stream-of-consciousness writing. This strategy
does not require the proposer to maintain focus on a general topic. Figure1.2 shows
an essay that this strategy would typically produce. With this strategy, there is no
evaluation of the quality of the output of the proposer, translator, or transcriber. The
only evaluation involves examining the TWSF to see if enough has been written.
A second strategy, the fixed-topic strategy, is the most common strategy in grades
one to five. With this strategy, every statement proposed must reference a single
topic. Figure1.3 shows an essay that this strategy would typically produce. Further,
unlike the flexible-focus strategy, the evaluation process does evaluate the quality of
the output of the other three processes.
A third strategy, the topic-elaboration strategy, is the most common strategy
in grades six through nine. With this strategy, the proposer maintains focus on a
I Like coloring because its not boring
Coloring
I like coloring cats
Coloring
I have a black cat at home
My Cat
His name is Inky
My Cats Name
Figure1.2.
An example of a flexible-focus essay (from Fuller, 1985).
Ashley
I like Ashley cus she is nice (1)
I like Ashley cus she plays with me (2)
Ashley is my friend (3)
1
I like people and Ashley is one (4)
She is nice (5)
Figure1.3.
An example of a fixedtopic essay (from Fuller, 1985).
Dinosaurs
I like dinosaurs because they are big. (1) And
they are scary. (2) I like Rex. (3) He was very
big. (4) He ate meat. (5) Triceratops is a very
nice dinosaur. (6) He ate plants. (7) He had
three horns on his face. (8) He had a shield on
his neck. (9) Stegosaurus was a plant eater
too. (10) He had (unfinished) (11)
Dinosaurs
10
11
Figure1.4.
An example of a topic-elaboration essay (from Fuller, 1985).
general topic but may introduce subtopics related to the main topic. Figure 1.4
shows an essay that this strategy would typically produce. These three strategies
produce texts with distinctive structures. The writing schema, then, selects and
organizes writing processes used to produce text and thus impacts the properties
of the text that is written.
Wallace and Hayes (1989) used the writing schema concept to analyze revision
in freshman college students. They noted that when freshmen revise, they tend to
revise locally. They read sentence 1, perhaps several times, and then revised it. Then
they read sentence 2 and revised it, and so on, sentence by sentence, through the
text. In contrast, more experienced writers typically revised globally. To prepare
themselves to revise a text, they evaluated the whole text and commented on global
features of the text such as its organization or the adequacy of the introduction or
the conclusion. Wallace and Hayes (1989) speculated that the reason for the difference between freshmen and more experienced writers might be a difference in their
schema for revision and that perhaps the freshman schema could be modified by
instruction. To test this hypothesis, they designed eight minutes of instruction that
[ 1 0 ] Part I:Models and Perspectives on Writing Development
contrasted a local revision schema with a global revision schema. They found that
the instruction resulted in a significant increase in global revision.
The fact that Wallace and Hayes (1989) found that revising a schema could
be modified by instruction doesnt imply that all writing schema can be modified
in the same way. The flexible-focus schema may be the only schema that a young
writer can manage given her limited attentional resources. Hayes (in press) suggests that changes in writing schema in the primary grades may await developmental enhancement of executive function.
INTEGRATING LEVELS OF THE FRAMEWORK
Now that we have discussed the parts of the framework separately, we will try to
tie them together with an example of a fourth grade student writing an essay in
class. Suppose that a teacher, acting as task initiator, asks a student, Susan, to write
about something she likes. This request leads Susan to set a goal. She decides to
write on a topic: her classmate Alice. Now she must adopt a writing schema. Since
she is in 4th grade, lets assume that she chooses the fixed-topic strategy described
earlier. With this strategy, Alice will be the topic of all of her sentences. To start
composing, Susan retrieves knowledge about Alice from long-term memory. She
proposes the idea Alice is my friend, translates it into language, and evaluates it
as appropriate for the essay. Finally, she transcribes the idea, but because Susan in
the fourth grade, spelling and handwriting are still difficult for her. These activities place heavy demands on her working memory resources so that, at this point,
she has few working-memory resources left to devote to other writing processes.
Having written one sentence, she starts the cycle again, proposing and writing
She plays with me, She is fun to play with, and so on. While she is writing, the
task environment may help or hurt. Looking around the classroom may remind
her of things to write about Alice. On the other hand, the voices of her classmates
may reduce her available working memory (Salame & Baddeley, 1982). After several cycles, Susan examines the text she has written so far and decides that she has
written enough for an essay and decides to stop. In this imagined writing incident,
Susan didnt draw on reading as a resource as may be typical of fourth grade writers in this kind of writing task. However, as we have noted, adult writers would
typically read and re-read the TWSF as they translate ideas into text and as they
evaluate what they have written.
APPLYING THE COGNITIVE FRAMEWORK TO CLINICAL

POPULATIONS
In exploring the applications of this framework to writing practice and research,

it will be important to study samples for whom the sensory, motor, and language
bases of their diagnosed disorders are well defined, with careful documentation of whether an individual has speech only, language only, or speech and language impairments and whether some degree of hearing acuity problems may be
present.
Deaf
Factors to consider in evaluating the resources (lower level Figure1.1) a writer

who is deaf has to bring to the writing process is age of identification, which is
related to when intervention may have begun (e.g., as an infant versus toddler)
and the nature of the intervention (e.g., sign language, oral method, cochlear
implantation or total communication). These factors are related to whether language develops in age-appropriate ways despite an auditory sensory impairment
and thus provides resources in the form of vocabulary and syntax knowledge. For
example, cued speech (see Bouton & Col, this volume) may prepare writers who
are deaf for the phonology involved in written spelling. Onset of deafness and age
of identification can also affect the development of the childs working-memory
system, which plays an important role in shaping the writing process of children
with hearing impairment, at the word and sentence level (see Arf, Nicolini, &
Pozzebon, this volume).
Speech Problems
Factors to consider, which may affect both resources and cognitive processes (lower
and middle level of Figure1.1), are whether the individual has speech-sound disorder and thus difficulty in processing the sounds of heard speech or speech articulation disorder (produced speech is not intelligible to others). Either could affect
development of spelling skills (transcription) that supports translation of ideas into
language and also learning word meanings through interacting with others in the
language-learning environment (see Puranik, Al Otaiba, & Ye, this volume).
Selective Language Impairment (Language-Learning Disability)
The nature of the language impairment will probably affect the nature of writing
problems encountered. Word finding problems may result in impaired composing
fluency (shorter language bursts and written texts). Syntax problems may result
in shorter sentences and sentences with grammar errors and thus the quality of
writing may suffer. At the resource level, the language learned and used in writing
will affect the complexity of syntax and the nature and rate of grammar errors (see
Reilly etal., this volume).
Inferential thinking problems (understanding what is implied but not stated in

language) may interfere with the proposing of ideas that may result in shorter and
less-well-developed texts.
Future Developments
It is a step forward, however, to acknowledge, as this volume does, that individuals

with aural sensory and oral motor and aural and oral language problems will also
have special assessment and instructional needs in learning to write. This chapter
makes the point that cognitive processes (and related resources and controls) are
as relevant to treatment planning as the sensory, motor, and language bases for the
disabilities these individuals have.
REFERENCES
Abbott, R., Berninger, V., & Fayol, M. (2010). Longitudinal relationships of levels of language
in writing and between writing and reading in grades 1 to 7. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 102, 281298.
Alamargot, D., Dansac, C., Chesnet, D., & Fayol, M. (2007). Parallel processing before
and after pauses: A combined analysis of graphomotor and eye movements during procedural text production. In M. Torrance, L. v. Waes, & D. Galbraith (Eds.),
Writing and cognition: Research and applications (Vol. 20, pp. 1329). Amsterdam,
Netherlands:Elsevier.
Berninger, V., & Abbott, D. (2010). Listening comprehension, oral expression, reading comprehension and written expression:Related yet unique language systems in grades 1, 3, 5,
and 7. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 635651.
Berninger, V. W., Yates, C., Cartwright, A., Rutberg, J., Remy. E., & Abbott, R. (1992).
Lower-level developmental skills in beginning writing. Reading and Writing: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 257280.
Berninger, V., Cartwright, A., Yates, C., Swanson, H.L., & Abbott, R. (1994). Developmental
skills related to writing and reading acquisition in the intermediate grades:Shared and
unique variance. Reading and Writing:An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, 161196.
Berninger, V., & Amtmann, D. (2003). Preventing written expression disabilities through
early and continuing assessment and intervention for handwriting and/or spelling
problems:Research into practice. In H. L.Swanson, K. Harris, and S. Graham (Eds.),
Handbook of research on learning disabilities (pp. 345363). NewYork, NY:Guilford.
Caccamise, D. J. (1987). Idea generation in writing. In A. Matsuhashi (Ed.) Writing in Real
Time? (pp. 224253). Norwood, NJ:JAI Press Limited.
Chenoweth, N., & Hayes, J.R. (2001). Fluency in writing. Generating text in L1 and L2. Written
Communication, 18, 8098.
Chenoweth, N.A., & Hayes, J.R. (2003). The inner voice in writing. Written Communication,
20(1), 99118.
Christensen, C. A. (2004). Relationship between orthographic-motor integration and computer use for the production of creative and well-structured text. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 74, 551564.
Connelly, V., Gee, D., & Walsh, E. (2007). A comparison of keyboarded and handwritten compositions and the relationship with transcription speed. British Journal of Educational
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P.A. (1980) Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450466.
Dansac, C., & Alamargot, D. (1999) Accessing referential information during text composition: When and why? In M. Torrance & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Knowing
what to write: Conceptual processes in text production (pp. 7997). Amsterdam,
Netherlands:Amsterdam University Press.
De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1995). Dictation:Applications to writing for students with learning disabilities. In T. Scruggs & M. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disorders (Vol. 9, pp. 227247). Greenwich, CT:JAI Press.
Diamond, A. (2006). The early development of executive functions. In E. Bialystok & F. I.M.
Craik (Eds.), Lifespan cognition: Mechanisms of change (chap. 6, pp. 7095). London,
England:Oxford University Press.
Daiute, C. (1984). Performance limits on writers. In R. Beach & L. S.Bridwell (Eds.), New
Directions in Composition research (pp. 205224). NewYork:Guilford Press.
Fayol, M., Largy, P., & Lamaire, P. (1994) Cognitive overload and orthographic errors:When
cognitive overload enhances subject-verb agreement errors, a study in French written
language. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 437464.
Fuller, D.F. (1995). Development of topic-comment algorithms and test structures in written compositions of students in grades one through nine. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Seattle,
WA:University of Washington.
Hayes, J.R. (2009). From idea to text. In R. Beard, D. A.Myhill, & J. Riley (Eds.), International
handbook of writing development (pp. 6579). London, England:Sage.
Hayes, J.R. (2011). Kinds of knowledge-telling:Modeling early writing development. Journal
of Writing Research, 3(2), 366383.
Hayes, J.R., & Berninger, V.W. (2010). Relationships between idea generation and transcription. How the act of writing shapes what children write. In C. Bazerman, R. Krut, K.
Lunsford, S. McLeod, S. Null, P. Rogers, & A. Stasnsell (Eds.), Traditions of writing
research (pp. 166181). NewYork, NY:Routledge.
Hayes, J.R., & Chenoweth, N.A. (2006). Is working memory involved in the transcribing and
editing of texts? Written Communication, 23(2), 135149.
Hayes, J. R., & Chenoweth, N. A. (2007). Working memory in an editing task. Written
Communication, 24(4), 283294.
Hayes, J.R., Flower, L., Schriver, K.A., Stratman, J., & Carey, L. (1987). Cognitive processes in
revision. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in Applied Psycholinguistics, Volume II:Reading
Writing and Language Processing (pp. 176240). Cambridge Press Cambridge England.
Hyn J., Lorch, R.F., and Kaakinen J.H. (2002). Individual differences in reading to summarize expository text:Evidence from eye fixation patterns. Educational Journal, 94(1),
4455.
Jones, D.A., & Christensen, C.A. (1999). Relationship between automaticity in handwriting
and students ability to generate written text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 16.
Kaufer, D.S., Hayes, J.R., & Flower, L.S. (1986). Composing written sentences. Research in the
Teaching of English, 20(2), 121140.
Ransdell, S., & Levy, C. M. (1999). Writing, reading, and speaking memory spans and the
importance of resource flexibility. In M. Torrence & G. C. Gaynor (Eds.), The cognitive demands of writing (Vol. 3, pp. 99113). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam
University Press.
Salame, P., & Baddeley, A.D. (1982). Disruption of memory by unattended speech:Implications
for the structure of working memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21,
150164.
Stroop, J.R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental
Voss, J.F., Vesonder, G.T., & Spilich, G.T. (1980). Text generation and recall by high-knowledge
and low-knowledge individuals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17,
651667.
Wallace, D., & Hayes, J.R. (1989). Redefining revision for freshmen. Research in the Teaching of
English, 25(1), 5466.
CHAPTER2
Linguistic Perspectives on
WritingDevelopment
RU TH A . BER M AN
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Written language is examined here as a style of discourse necessary for achievement of linguistic literacy (Ravid & Tolchinsky, 2002). By focusing on linguistic
expression, discussion disregards other important aspects of writing development,
including the following:
Notational features such as spelling or punctuation, which have critical linguistic correlates (Ravid, 2011).
Thematic content, although form and meaning can never be fully separated, as
shown by the close interrelation between linguistic expression and ideational
content in comparing narrative with non-narrative discourse (Berman &
Katzenberger, 2004; Longacre, 1996; Ravid & Cahana-Amitay, 2005).
Global discourse structure and organization, which develops in writing
narratives well before expository essays (Berman & Nir, 2007, 2009a), and
which also involves paragraphing (Longacre, 1979; Myhill, 2009; Nir, 2008).
Analysis focuses on linguistic units involved in text analysis, with a cross-linguistic
and developmental perspective, spanning the period from elementary to high school
as reflecting later language development (Berman, 2004, 2007; Tolchinsky, 2004).
The chapter outlines carefully specified, quantifiable methods for evaluating written
language expression, deriving from research on texts constructed by typically developing students from middle childhood to adulthood (Berman & Ravid, 2009). Analyses
referred to later are based on a large-scale cross-linguistic project investigating the text
construction abilities of typically developing participants at four age-schooling levels
(grade schoolers aged 910years, middle-school students aged 1213, high-schoolers
aged 1617, and graduate school adults in their 20s and 30s). All participants were
native speakers of seven different languages including Californian English and Israeli
Hebrew (Berman, 2005; 2008).1 Participants were shown a short wordless video clip
depicting unresolved situations of conflict and then asked to write and tell a story
about an incident where they had been involved in a situation of problems between
people (a personal-experience narrative) and to write a composition and give a talk on
the topic problems between people (an expository discussion)with the four text
types balanced for order.
Each of the 80 participants (20 per age group) at seven different sites thus produced four different texts on the shared theme of interpersonal conflicta written
and spoken narrative and a written and spoken expository text. Carefully corresponding elicitation procedures (detailed in Berman & Verhoeven, 2002)allowed
for direct comparability across the variables of age-schooling level, genre (narrative/expository), and modality (speech/writing). The measures outlined below
rely largely on computerized tools for language analysis in the CHILDES programswith conventions of transcription, text-line specifications, and counting
of units provided by detailed, constantly updated manuals (MacWhinney, 2000;
http://childes.psy.cmu.edu/manuals/clan.pdfOctober 2010). Devised originally for early child language and interactive discourse, the system can accommodate speaker-writers from infancy to adulthood in varied communicative
contexts. CHILDES encompasses oral and written data from numerous languages,
including non-Roman orthographies, and deals with variables from pronunciation via lexicon and grammar to paralinguistic and pragmatic facets of language
communication.
The chapter delineates four hierarchically ordered units of analysisword,
phrase, clause, clause package (Section 1)analyzes their diagnostic value in lexicon and syntax across the variables of age, text-type, and/or modality (Section 2);
and notes the role of genre, topic, and language typology for assessment of writing
(Section 3).
UNITS OF ANALYSIS (SECTION 1)
Linguistic elements relevant to analyzing written language need to be defined

explicitly for specific research purposes and for each language. Four such units
are delineated next, each comprising a constituent level of the next:word, phrase,
clause, and clause package.
L i n g u i s t i c P e r s p e ct i v e s o n W r i t i n g D e v e l o p m e n t [ 1 7 ]
Words
Words are recognized as the fundamental building blocks of human language, hence,
too, in analysis of written texts. Aword in written language is generally defined
operationally as any string of characters separated from the next by a space. Yet defining a written word is not so simple. First, even fourth graders may have difficulty in
segmenting lexical items into words as stipulated by dictionary conventions in their
language. Second, languages differ in what counts as a word in writing:Compare
contractions in English (Im ~I am, theres ~ there is, there has), elisions in French
(jai ~ je suis, lpaule ~ la tte), or the fact that in Hebrew, seven high-frequency
morphemes are attached as prefixes to the next word in writingthe conjunctions
and, that, the definite article the, and the prepositions meaning in, to, from, like.
Conventions also differ for writing compounds:In Englishsingle, hyphenated, or
two separate words (appleblossom, apple-pie, apple tree); in Hebrewgenerally two
separate words; and in Dutch, German, or Swedishtypically single orthographic
strings, no matter how long or freely analyzable (Berman, 2009a). Third, semantically corresponding lexical items may have different forms:For example, English
phrasal verbs (e.g., go up, go in, go away) have monolexemic Latinate counterparts (ascend, enter, depart, etc.), and using the phrasal verbs increases the number
of words in English texts compared with, say, French or Italian. Frozen multiword
expressions (Wulff, 2008)are another problem in counting words, for example, in
English off and on, on the one hand, in French il y a, parce que, and in Hebrew be-sofo
el davar (in-end-its of thing=eventually), lo kol e-ken (not all that-yes=letalone).
To counter these problems, the cross-linguistic project noted in the introduction adopted a baseline of shared principles plus language-particular procedures
for specifying words. Inflectional and derivational morphemes counted as part of
a single word across languages. CHILDES conventions marked certain strings as
either one or more than one lexical element (e.g., compound nouns in English and
Hebrew, idiomatic two-word verbs in English, and the seven prefixed Hebrew morphemes); treated them distinctly for language-internal analyses and cross-linguistic
comparisons; and listed multilexemic expressions separately for each language
(Berman, 2002).
Phrases
Sentences are not simply linear successions of words, but are made up of internal
constituents. Words cluster syntactically in phrases and clauses, in turn combining
into larger packages. In phrases, words group together as syntactic, clause-internal
units,2 with a lexical element as headpronoun or noun in noun phrases (NP), verb
in verb phrases (VP), adjective in adjective phrases (AP), and preposition in prepositional phrases (PP). The head may be modified in NPs, by determiners, adjectives,
prepositional phrases, or relative clauses (compare creatures with the many strange
green-eyed creatures with striped suits that appear in the movie); in VPs, by auxiliaries,
particles, and adverbials (e.g., take with may be taken away suddenly); the adjective
in APs by adverbs (e.g., beautiful with the really most amazingly beautiful). Languages
differ markedly in the ordering of phrasal heads and modifiers. For example, in
English, modifiers precede the head noun if analyzed as a single word: compare
green-eyed creatures with creatures with green eyes; in Hebrew, all modifiers except for
numerals and other quantifiers follow the head noun; in French, adjectives sometimes precede and sometimes follow the head noun.
Clauses
The clause is a semantic and syntactic unit of linguistic structure, defined by Berman
and Slobin (1994, p.660) as a single predication expressing a unified situation (an
activity, event, or state), with detailed conventions for dividing texts in different
languages into clauses provided in an appendix (1994, pp.660662). Aclause is
most typically, but not always, identifiable as containing a single verb (e.g., They
walked home); but where verbs are modified by auxiliaries or by modal or aspectual
verbs (e.g., The little boy might have been taken home; Her neighbor went on talking nonstop) these are taken to represent unified situations, and hence are defined
as single clauses. Moreover, not all clauses may contain an overt verb:In Hebrew,
Russian, and Turkish for example, copular clauses in present tense need not contain
an overt verb form (compare:they are students with its Hebrew equivalent hem studntim literally they students). Importantly, a clause may but need not be a complete sentence, since complex sentences typically consist of more than a single
clause. See, for example, the following sentence, with clause-endings indicated by a
square bracket:When Iwas in the seventh grade,] I had a conflict with a boy] who was
in a few of my classes].
The clause has proved a reliable unit of written and spoken discourse in different languages and types of extended discoursepicture-book and personal-experience narratives, and argumentative and informative texts (Berman & Verhoeven,
2002). In practice, college students easily learn to demarcate texts into clauses, with
high inter-coder agreement. In principle, the clause is preferable as a basic unit of
written text-based linguistic analysis to the following alternatives: (a) utterances
stretches of speech output defined by intonation, best suited to spoken, interactive
discourse; (b) propositionsvague semantic and/or discursive entities without clear
structural boundaries; and (c) sentencesabstract, theory-dependent linguistic
constructs that are notoriously difficult to define (Chafe, 1994; Halliday, 1989).
Even educated adults do not share the same idea of what constitutes a sentence,
and stylistic conventions differ on whether connectives like English so, yet, however
may or must start a new sentence. Importantly, for present purposes, the clause is
a necessary unit of analysis for evaluating syntactic complexity beyond the level of
the phrase.
Clause Packages
An elusive, yet challenging facet of written text analysis lies in the domain of
clause-combining (Haiman & Thompson, 1988), or syntactic packaging
(Berman & Slobin, 1994, pp.538554)groups of clauses clustered together into
larger units for segmenting texts and analyzing discursive connectivity (Berman,
1998; Scott, 2004). Clause packages (CPs) are text-embedded units of two or more
clauses linked by syntactic, lexical, and/or thematic relations, which provide a linguistically motivated level of textual analysis lying between individual clauses and
global discourse organization (Berman & Nir, 2009b; Nir, 2008; Nir & Berman,
2010). Interclausal relations within CPs are usually overtly marked by conjunctions, or else inferred from the thematic progression of a text, as illustrated in the
Appendix.
The CP was preferred for assessing clause-combining to accepted notions such
as a T(erminable) Unit (Hunt, 1965), on discursive and developmental grounds
(Berman & Katzenberger, 2004, pp. 6468).3 CPs consider how clause linkage
functions in the text as a whole; they take account of topic shifts or maintenance;
and differentiate items like and, so, but used as pragmatically motivated utteranceintroducers (Berman, 1996) or segment-tagging discourse markers (Ravid &
Berman, 2006) as against grammatical interclausal connectives.
DIAGNOSTICS OF DEVELOPING WRITTEN TEXT CONSTRUCTION

(SECTION 2)
Application of these units of analysis proved diagnostic of school-age writing abilities in use of words and syntax, and as reflecting communicative appropriateness.
Word-Based Measures
Overall text length assessed by number of words has been shown to differentiate
between: age-schooling levels in different languages (Berman & Slobin, 1994;
Berman & Verhoeven, 2002; Malvern, Richards, Chipere, & Durn, 2004), written
versus spoken texts (Berman & Nir, 2009b; Berman & Ravid, 2009), and normally
developing students versus students with language-impairment (Davidi & Berman,
this volume).
Qualitative word-based measures reflect the importance of vocabulary for
school-age literacy development in different populations (Dockrell & Messer,
2004; Perfetti, 2007; Ravid, 2004a). The cross-linguistic project revealed consistent patterns across the variables of age-schooling level (fourth graders in
middle childhood, pre-adolescent seventh graders, adolescent eleventh graders, and university-educated adults), modality (speech/writing), and genre
(personal-experience narrative/expository discussion) for five text-based criteria

of lexical usageword length, lexical diversity, density, abstractness, and register.
In word length, written texts contained longer words than oral texts, and expository essays contained longer words than personal-experience narratives. Older students used significantly more polysyllabic words than younger, with words of three
syllables or more mainly from high school up. These findings applied to structurally
distinct languages like English, Hebrew, and Swedish, both when counted in syllables (Berman & Ravid, 2009; Nir-Sagiv, Bar-Ilan, & Berman, 2008)and in letters
(Strmqvist, Johansson, Kriz, Ragnarsdttir, & Ravid, 2002).
Lexical diversitythe proportion of different words out of total words in a
text measures lack of lexical repetitiveness in writing. The VOCD (Vocabulary
Diversity) procedure in CHILDES (Malvern etal, 2004)yielded higher scores for
written than spoken texts, in interaction with age-schooling level (Strmqvist etal,
2002).4
Lexical densitythe proportion of content words (nouns, verbs, adjectives) in
a textis indicative of textual richness, because open-class items convey the bulk
of semantic content and substantive information. Written texts are lexically denser
than oral texts produced by the same student (Berman & Nir, 2010; Nir et al.,
2008), with content words increasing significantly as a function of age-schooling
level. Proportion of Adjectives out of total content words is also diagnostic of more
richly descriptive language across the variables of modality and age-schooling
level (Ravid & Levie, 2010), as is use of manner adverbs like Hebrew bi-mhirut
(with speed = rapidly), be-simxa (with-joy = joyfully) (Nir & Berman, 2010).
However, this requires contextual analysis, because forms like ly often have a
discourse-marker function of intensifying (e.g., absolutely, really, extremely) or
hedging (e.g., basically, partly, probably), suited to colloquial oral style rather than
to formal written language (Ravid & Berman, 2006). Lexical diversity and density,
as text-based criteria of variety and referential richness, increase significantly from
middle to high school, with higher scores in expository rather than narrative and in
written rather than oral texts.
Similar patterns emerged for two other context-sensitive lexical measures applied
to the English- and Hebrew-language samples of the cross-linguistic project
Nominal abstractness and Linguistic register. Nominal abstractness is a qualitative, but
quantifiable criterion that reflects the thematic content of a text. This semantic measure is based on a 10-point scale devised for Hebrew (Ravid, 2006) and collapsed
to 4 levels for English (Nir-Sagiv et al., 2008). At the low end are count nouns
encoding concretely imageable referents (including specific entities like John, a ball,
flowers and categorial roles and generic terms like every teacher, my house, people)
compared to abstract, high-register, or low frequency terms (e.g., rival, cult), often
also morphologically complex (like relationship, existence), or metaphorical extensions of concrete terms (path to success, river of time). In both languages, high-school
students used far more abstract, morphologically complex nouns than younger,
more in their written essays than their narratives. Similar scales could be devised
for different languages, based on contextual evaluation of how words are used in a
given text. (Compare English way in: the way home, the Milky Way, the way up, right
of way, came his way.)
Linguistic register characterizes level of lexical usage, from low-level slang and substandard usages inappropriate in formal, school-based written contexts via everyday colloquial usage of speakers of a standard variety to high-level, elevated styles
(Conrad & Biber, 2001; Eggins & Martin, 1997). This largely sociologically determined aspect of language use requires distinct criteria of low versus high register for each language. For example, the Germanic-Latinate contrast between largely
monosyllabic and bisyllabic, everyday words of native origin like tell, childish compared with rarer, more elevated terms like relate, infantile, respectively, distinguishes
the language used by English-speaking adolescents from different backgrounds
(Corson, 1984, 1995). When applied to all open-class vocabulary items in our
English-language sample by procedures detailed in Bar-Ilan and Berman (2007),
this measure yielded consistently significant differences: Written expository texts
relied most on formal Latinate items, as did high school students and adults compared with younger students. Proportion of words from Latinate compared with
native Germanic origin is less relevant in a language like Swedish, whereas standard
French applies other criteria for distinguishing everyday colloquial vocabulary from
the academic, written-language lexicon ( Jisa, 2004a). The English-language sample
also showed the five lexical measures to converge, and they were statistically correlated (Nir-Sagiv et al., 2008): Words of Latinate origin are generally polysyllabic,
they represent a more elevated register of usage, and are often semantically abstract.
Another, highly distinctive means of evaluating level of written language is
word frequency as a key factor in language knowledge and use (Bybee, 2006; Bybee
& Hopper, 2001), but this is only relevant in languages that have access to large,
well-established lists of lexical frequencies across both written and spoken corpora
(e.g., Leech, Rayson & Wilson, 2001), of a kind unavailable for Hebrew. Besides,
each measure targets different facets of lexical knowledgeword-structure, semantic content, and style of usage. As such, each warrants attention for educational
assessment, most particularly for diagnostic purposes in special populations, and
for defining individual and/or cross-population profiles, because less proficient or
language-impaired students may encounter difficulties in some rather than other
lexical domains.
Across languages, lexical usage was most colloquial and least dense and diverse
in oral narratives at one extreme and expository essays at the other, most markedly from high-school age students (Berman & Ravid, 2009; Ravid & Berman,
2009). These differences demonstrate sensitivity to vocabulary appropriateness,
with written language representing a special discourse style that consolidates in
late adolescence among normally developing students, as a watershed in mastery
of language-based literacy skills. It involves mastery of a school-based lexicon
(Ravid & Berman, 2009) that cuts across knowledge domains (e.g., nouns like
extent, problem, function; verbs like require, refer, include; or prepositional phrases
like for example, in contrast, on the other hand) and the ability to deploy a literate
lexicon (Ravid, 2004a) relevant to the genre and subject-matter of a given piece of
writing, which, in turn, depends on writers knowledge-base and familiarity with a
given topic. Besides, high-flown, elevated vocabulary is not necessarily the hallmark
of good writing or superior text quality (Berman & Nir, 2009b), which may be
realized by clear, straightforward plain English no less than by elaborate formulations or fancy rhetoric.
Syntactic Measures
Syntactic measures support and supplement trends in lexical usage (Berman, 2005,
2008). Texts need first to be divided into relevant units, with phrases tagged as NP,
VP, AP, or PP, subdivided into heads and modifiers, and clauses tagged for syntactic function in a given clause-combining segment (here, Clause Packages [CPs]).
Clause-types include the following: Main Clause (MC) ( Juxtaposed, MCJ, if more
than one in the same CP), Coordinate Clause (CO)specified for same or different subjects and/or ellipsisComplement (CM), Relative (RC), and different
types of Adverbial Clauses (AV): for example, REAson, RESult, CIRcumstantial,
ConDitioNal, and [NF] if nonfinite. These categories of syntactic analysis are illustrated in the Appendix by a high-school boys written narrative divided into clauses
and clause-packages (CPs), with dependently nested clauses marked in curly
brackets, lexical NPs in italics, and PPs underlined.
Mean Clause Length (MCL) measured by words per clause indicates syntactic
density, how much information is packed into the boundaries of a single unit of
predication. MCL distinguished significantly across development, modality, and
genre:For example, the 80 narratives written in English increased from a mean of
5.2 in the fourth-grade group, to 5.8 in seventh grade, 6.4 in eleventh grade, and
6.5 in the adults. The parallel Hebrew sample also showed a significant age-related
increase, despite a lower overall MCL due to the synthetic morphology of Hebrew,
condensing within words information often expressed between words in English
(Berman & Ravid, 2009).
Phrase-based measures include the following: number of words per phrase, number of phrases per clause, and of different types of phrases per clause. Qualitative
features of phrasal semantics need to be specified by their use in context, for example, in analyzing noun abstractness (Nir-Sagiv et al., 2008; Ravid, 2006) or prepositional usage (Berman, 2009b; Nir & Berman, 2010).
NP complexity was assessed by five criteria: (1) length in words, (2) semantic complexity of head noun, (3)quality and number of modifiers, (4)syntactic
depth (measured by number of nouns inside a given NP through occurrence of
compound nouns, prepositional phrases, and/or relative clauses), and (5)syntactic variability as analyzed for English and Hebrew (Ravid & Berman, 2010), French
(Mazur-Palandre, 2009), and Spanish (Salas, 2010). These criteria distinguished
significantly by age, modality (more complex NPs in written than spoken texts),
and genre (more complex NPs in expository than in narrative texts)with essays
on an abstract topic a favored site for use of syntactically complex, semantically
abstract NP constructions. Developmentally, long and complex NPs are rare before
high school. NP complexity thus demonstrates the combined impact of cognitive
processing constraints and later school-age literacy development coupled with target language typology.
Verb Phrase structure also differs by language. For example, verb-satellite
languages like English and German rely heavily on phrasal verbs, compared with
verb-framed languages like Romance and Hebrew (Slobin, 1996, 2004a); languages like Spanish or English have rich auxiliary verb systems compared with
Hebrew. Long and structurally elaborate verb phrases emerged as a hallmark of
syntactic complexity (e.g., from English high-school essays:causative make happy,
progressive be sitting, future is about to arrive, passive was being taken, may be worked
out). As with NPs, lexicon and syntax interact, with main verbs increasingly more
abstract and high-register as a function of age (from adolescence up), modality
(written versus spoken texts), and genre (expository versus narrative texts). These
findings were consistent across languages, despite use of impersonal constructions in Spanish (Tolchinsky & Rosado, 2005) versus an age-related increase in
passive voice in French ( Jisa, 2004a, b). In English, more advanced VP constructions include the following:nonfinite verbs in subordinate clauses as a tightly cohesive means of clause-combining (to upset him; saying, not exaggerating); reliance
on passive voice (Reilly, Zamora, & McGivern, 2005); and modals with passive
verbsmust be addressed, needs to be handled (Reilly, Jisa, & Berman, 2002). Across
languages, VP length and complexity was diagnostic of more advanced written
expression (Kupersmitt, 2006; Ragnarsdttir, Aparici, Cahana-Amitay, van Hell, &
Vigui, 2002).
Prepositional Phrases, as descriptive means for elaborating on VPs (Chafe &
Danielewicz, 1987) were identified by Loban (1976) as indicative of students
writing abilities. PPs also constitute an important site for NP insertionas in the
underlined elements in The train arrived at the station in record time without further mishap. Prepositions embody an important interface between lexicon and
syntax. For example, childrens oral narratives showed marked age-related changes
in variety and semantic content of prepositions and the complexity of their associated NPs (Berman, 2009a; Berman & Slobin, 1994, pp.159162). Distributional
measures of PPs should thus be extended by qualitative, contextually based evaluations of their semantic content and discursive functions.
Clauses per clause package provide a syntactic-discursive diagnostic in the
domain of textual connectivity, with 3.8 clauses per CP in the text in Appendix.
Developmentally, the narratives written in English combined on average 2.7
clauses per CP, rising to 3.5 in 11th grade, compared with only 2.3 to 2.9 in
Hebrew grade-school versus high-school texts and a mean of 3.1 to 4.9 in the more
densely packaged Spanish narratives (Berman & Nir, 2009b). Interclausal syntactic
connectivity measured by number of clauses combined in units of discursive syntax distinguished significantly between age schooling levels across our sample,
confirming findings for increased syntactic packaging in younger childrens oral
narratives (Berman & Slobin, 1994).
The text in the Appendix demonstrates another important feature concerning quality of interclausal relations: It combines clauses not only linearly, one after
another, but by complex dependencies, for example, embedding a conditional
clause inside a nonfinite complement clause or a reason clause inside a finite complement clause, or a coordinate clause inside a modal auxiliary, or in a relative clause
inside the subject NP of the verb worked. Such interwoven dependencies are rare
in texts written by students before high school, and they distinguish between normally developing and language/learning impaired students aged between 10 and
12 years (Scott, 2004; and see, too, Davidi & Berman, this volume). They demonstrate the ability to integrate different facets and phases of a situation within a
single unit of discourse, which is proof of linguistic command of complex syntax
combined with advanced cognitive processing abilities in the course of thinking
for writing (Slobin, 1996; 2004b).
COMMUNICATIVE APPROPRIATENESS (SECTION 3)
The idea of discourse stance, as a pragmatic frame for organizing texts, reflecting
how speaker-writers use language to position themselves with respect to a piece
of discourse in given circumstances (Berman, Ragnarsdttir, & Strmqvist,
2002), proved highly diagnostic of age-schooling level, text-type, and target language. For example, different devices served to express a distanced, impersonal
stance in expository essays written in English (Reilly, Zamora, & McGovern,
2005) or French ( Jisa & Vigu, 2005) compared with Hebrew (Berman,
2011)and Spanish (Tolchinsky & Rosado, 2005); in contrast, in both Icelandic
and Swedish, participants used generic pronouns (Icelandic maur and Swedish
man analogous to German man or French on), but differed in their use of passive
voice for expressing an impersonal, nonagent oriented perspective on events
(Ragnarsdttir & Strmqvist, 2005).
Children are sensitive to genre distinctiveness early on: Clusters of linguistic features distinguished personal-experience narratives from more formal,
academic-style expository essays, where even fourth graders made greater use of
elevated forms of expression like heavy NPs, abstract nominals, and modal predicates (Berman & Nir-Sagiv, 2004; Ravid, 2004b; Reilly etal, 2002). Yet we also
found a paradoxical contrast between local-level linguistic expression and global
discourse structure: Normally developing students show command of narrative
discourse by middle childhood, both in writing and orally, but it takes until high
school for them to write coherently well-organized non-narrative texts (Berman &
Nir, 2007).
CONCLUSIONS
The group measures discussed in this chapter for evaluation of writing abilitiesby
careful delimitation of units of analysis (Section 1)and application of various different diagnostics at each level of analysis (Section 2)should, ideally, also serve
to generate both group and individual profiles in relation to environmental variables
such as SES background (Berman, Nayditz, & Ravid, 2011)and student-sensitive
variables such as language/learning impairments (Davidi & Berman, this volume).
Distributional counts (e.g., proportion of content words, number of PPs per text),
derivable from automatic computerized programs, provide valuable information
along all such variables, but typically require manual disambiguation. We found
this to be the case in as high as 40% of the items in our sample, for different reasons,
such as whether up is a preposition, a particle, or a verb in English, or polysemous
words like bank, love. Besides, quantitative breakdowns of forms need to be augmented by contextually motivated qualitative accounts of their structural complexity,
semantic content, and discursive functions (Berman, 2009b; Slobin, 2001).
The impact of target language typology, and the effects of translation on thinking
for writing (Slobin, 2004b), suggest caution in transposing language-proficiency
measures from one language to another. Some measures (e.g., lexical diversity and
density, syntactic density) may apply similarly to different languages, whereas others involve language-specific diagnostics. Examples of cross-group differences in
Hebrew include the following: diversity of binyan verb patterns to express verbargument relations (Berman, Nayditz, & Ravid, 2011); use of derived adjectives
(Berman, 2004; Ravid, 2004a); and use of compound constructions (Berman,
2009b). Different features distinguish academic, school-based writing in French,
including: past-tense forms, subject pronouns, question-formation, and use of passive rather than on for expressing an impersonal stance ( Jisa, 2004a, b). Socially
determined features like linguistic register and discourse stance also differ by language, whereas stylistic preferences affect the expressive choices of speaker-writers in
different languagesfor example, in temporality and clause-packaging in English,
Hebrew, and Spanish (Kupersmitt, 2006; Berman & Nir, 2009b), use of compounds
in English and Hebrew (Berman, 2009b), and narrative settings in reconstructing
fables in Hebrew and Spanish (Sandbank, 2004).
Analyses of linguistic means deployed for expressing discourse stance from
personally involved interactive conversations to extended texts and formal essays
highlight the importance of assessing writing not only across languages, but also
across genres. The particular type and topic of discourse affects writing performance
at all levels of text construction (again, in interaction with age-literacy level and
individual abilities):Personal-experience accounts are generally accessible and rely
on colloquial everyday language more than fictive narratives, which require imaginative skills and richer expressive devices. Informative texts require extensive world
knowledge and the ability to distinguish generalizations from particulars, hypotheses from facts, whereas writing about a familiar topic like friendship or pets is less
cognitively challenging than an abstract topic like interpersonal conflict (Berman

& Nir, 2010).
A methodological implication of this study is the importance of applying
carefully comparable procedures for working with different populations as in our
cross-linguistic project with typically developing native speakers of seven languages,
at the same four age-schooling levels, from similar SES backgrounds. Eliciting from
each participant four different texts on a shared topic enabled direct comparisons
across text types, for statistical analyses as well as for functional analyses of linguistic devices in domains like connectivity, reference, or discourse stance. These procedures can readily be extended to educational and clinical contexts for purposes of
individual profiling, remedial instruction, and intervention.
Finally, as pointed out by Rimmer, although it is an achievement in literacy to
be able to construct more complex grammar in order to express deeper and finer
meanings... the effectiveness of a text cannot be judged solely by the words and
structures used (2008, p. 34). On the one hand, detailed stipulation of linguistic forms (morphemes, words, multilexemic expressions, syntactic structures,
word-order alternations) circumvents problems in evaluating written language proficiency in terms of overall text quality. Yet the lexical and syntactic complexity of
a piece of writing does not necessarily guarantee interesting or coherent text construction. Consequently, linguistic criteria like those delineated in this chapter need
to be augmented by global measures of thematic content and discourse structure.
Holistic judgments may converge on the elusive notion of text quality, but even
experts characterize it by varied, often inexplicit criteria from spelling and punctuation to informativeness or originality (Berman & Nir, 2009a). Relevant directions
are suggested in our cross-linguistic project for global-level characterizations of
both narrative and expository texts (Berman & Nir, 2007)and for analyzing segments of texts (Berman & Katzenberger, 2004; Tolchinsky, Johansson, & Zamora,
2002), so complementing analyses of local linguistic expression. In sum, in evaluating students writing as well as for purposes of intervention, a careful balance needs
to be achieved between both global and local levels of text construction, on the
one hand, and between analysis of linguistic forms and structures and the functions
they serve in conveying referential information and thematic content, on the other.
NOTES
1. The study was supported by a major research grant from the Spencer Foundation for the
study of Developing Literacy, to Ruth Berman, PI. English-language data-collection was
supervised by Judy S.Reilly, San Diego State University.
2. Cross-lingual use of these terms is inconsistent (French phrase corresponds to sentence
in English).
3. Although ostensibly conducted in the same framework as the present study, hence adopting the term clause packaging, the analysis of Verhoeven etal (2002) in fact considers
only T-units.
4. VOCD measures types by word-forms, not lexemes; for example, English speak, speaks,
speaking, spoke, spoken (French parle, parlant, parl, parlera, parlions) count as five different types. By grade-school age, language-specific procedures defining different lexemes
may be more diagnostic, with the five English and French items cited here being different
forms of a single lexeme (the verbs speak, parler), and words like spokesman, speech, or
speechify counted as three separate lexemes.
REFERENCES
Bar-Ilan, L. & Berman, R. A. (2007). Developing register differentiation: The LatinateGermanic divide in English. Linguistics, 45, 136.
Berman, R.A. (1996). Form and function in developing narrative abilities:The case of and.
In D. Slobin, J. Gerhardt, A. Kyratzis, & J. Guo (Eds.), Social interaction, context, and
language:Essays in honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp (pp. 243268). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
Berman, R.A. (1998). Typological perspectives on connectivity. In N. Dittmar & Z. Penner
(Eds.), Issues in the theory of language acquisition (pp. 203224). Bern:Peter Lang.
Berman, R. A. (2002). Crosslinguistic comparisons in later language development. In
S. Strmqvist (Ed.), The diversity of languages and language learning (pp. 2544).
Lund:Center for Languages and Literature.
Berman, R.A. (2004). Between emergence and mastery:The long developmental route of language acquisition. In R. A. Berman (Ed.), Language development across childhood and
adolescence (pp. 934). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Berman, R.A. (2005). Introduction:Developing discourse stance in different text types and
languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 37 [Special issue on Discourse Stance], 105124.
Berman, R. A. (2007). Developing language knowledge and language use across adolescence. In E. Hoff & M. Shatz (Eds.), Handbook of language development (pp. 346367).
London:Blackwell.
Berman, R.A. (2008). The psycholinguistics of developing text construction. Journal of Child
Language, 35, 735771.
Berman, R.A. (2009a). Acquisition of compound constructions. In R. Lieber & P. Stekauer
(Eds.), Handbook of compounding (pp. 298322). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Berman, R. A. (2009b). Beyond the sentence: Language development in narrative contexts. In E. Bavin (Ed.), Handbook of child language (pp. 354375). Cambridge,
England:Cambridge University Press.
Berman, R.A. (2011). Revisiting impersonal constructions in Hebrew:Corpus-based perspectives. In A. Malchov & A. Sierwieska, (Eds.), Cross-linguistic perspectives on impersonal
constructions (pp. 323355). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Berman, R. A. & Katzenberger, I. (2004). Form and function in introducing narrative and
expository texts:Adevelopmental perspective. Discourse Processes, 38, 5794.
Berman, R.A. & Nir, B. (2007). Comparing narrative and expository text construction across
adolescence:Adevelopmental paradox. Discourse Processes, 43, 79120.
Berman, R.A. & Nir, B. (2009a). Cognitive and linguistic factors in evaluating expository text
quality:Global versus local? In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive
linguistics (pp. 421440). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Berman, R.A. & Nir, B. (2009b). Clause-packaging in narratives:Acrosslinguistic developmental study. In J. Guo, E. Lieven, S. Ervin-Tripp, N. Budwig, S. zalikan, & K. Nakamura
(Eds.) Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language:Research in the tradition of
Dan I.Slobin (pp. 149182). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
Berman, R.A. & Nir, B. (2010). The lexicon in speech-writing differentiation:Developmental

perspectives. Written Language & Literacy, 13, 185206.
Berman, R. A. & Nir-Sagiv, B. (2004). Linguistic indicators of inter-genre differentiation in
later language development. Journal of Child Language, 31, 339380.
Berman, R.A. & Ravid, D. (2009). Becoming a literate language user:Oral and written text
construction across adolescence. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Cambridge
handbook of literacy (pp. 92111). Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.
Berman, R.A. & Slobin, D. (1994). Relating events in narrative:Acrosslinguistic developmental
study. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Berman, R. A. & Verhoeven, L. (2002). Developing text production abilities in speech and
writing:Aims and methodology. Written Languages and Literacy, 5, 144.
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The minds response to repetition. Language, 82,
529551.
Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. (Eds). (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure.
Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Chafe, W.L. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time:The flow of language in speech and writing.
Chicago, Il:Chicago University Press.
Chafe, W. L. & Danielewicz, J. (1987). Properties of spoken and written language. In R.
Horowitz, & S. J.Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 83112).
NewYork, NY:Academic Press.
Conrad, S. & Biber, D. (Eds.). (2001). Variation in English:Multi-dimensional studies. Harlow,
England:Pearson Education (Longmans).
Corson, D. (1984). The lexical bar:Lexical change from 12 to 15years measured by social class,
region and ethnicity. British Educational Research Journal, 10, 115133.
Corson, D. (1995). Using English words. Dordrecht, Netherlands:Kluwer.
Dockrell, J. & Messer, D. (2004). Lexical acquisition in the early school years. In R. A.Berman
(Ed.), Language development across childhood and adolescence (pp. 3552). Amsterdam,
Netherlands:John Benjamins.
Eggins, S. & Martin, J.R. (1997). Genres and registers of discourse. In T. A.van Dijk (Ed.),
Discourse as structure and process (pp. 230256). London:Sage.
Haiman, J. & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.) (1988). Clause combining in grammar and discourse.
Amsterdam, Netherlands:John Benjamins.
Halliday, M.A. K. (1989). Spoken and written language. Oxford, England:Oxford University
Press.
Hunt, K. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Research Report No.
3.Champaign, Il:National Council of Teachers of English.
Jisa, H. (2004a). Growing into academic French. In R. A.Berman (Ed.), Language development
across childhood and adolescence (pp. 135162). Amsterdam, Netherlands:John Benjamins.
Jisa, H. (2004b). Developing alternatives for indicating discourse stance. In D. Ravid & H.
Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot (Eds.), Perspectives on language and language development:Essays in
honor of Ruth A.Berman (pp. 357374). Dordrecht, Netherlands:Kluwer.
Jisa, H. & Vigui, A. (2005). A developmental perspective on the role of on in written and
spoken expository texts in French. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 125144.
Kupersmitt, J. (2006). Temporality in texts:Across-linguistic study of form-function relations in
narrative and expository discourse (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). Bar Ilan University,
Ramat Gan, Israel.
Leech, G., Rayson, P., & Wilson, A. (2001). Word frequencies in written and spoken English:Based
on the British National Corpus. London:Longman.
Loban, W. (1976). Language development:Kindergarten through grade twelve. Research Report
No. 18. Champaign, Il:National Council of Teachers of English.
Longacre, R. E. (1979). The paragraph as a grammatical unit. Syntax and Semantics, 12,
116134.
Longacre, R.E. (1996). The grammar of discourse. 2nd edition. NewYork:Plenum.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project:Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed., Volumes 1 and
2). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
Malvern, D., Richards, B., Chipere, N., & Durn, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development:Quantification and assessment. Basingngstoke:Palgrave MacMillan.
Mazur-Palandre, A. (2009). Le flux de linformation, aspects syntaxiques et discursifs:Une tude
fontionnaliste et dveloppemtale (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). Universit Lumire
Lyon 2, Lyon, France.
Myhill, D. (2009). Developmental trajectories in mastery of paragraphing:Towards a model of
development. Written Language & Literacy, 12, 2651.
Nir, B. (2008). Clause packages as constructions in developing narrative discourse (Unpublished
Doctoral dissertation). Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Nir, B. & Berman, R.A. (2010). Complex syntax as a window on contrastive rhetoric. Journal
of Pragmatics, 42, 744765.
Nir, B. & Berman, R.A. (2010). Parts of speech as constructions:The case of Hebrew adverbs.
Constructions and Frames, 2, 242274. [Special issue in honor of C.J. Fillmore].
Nir, B., Bar-Ilan, L., & Berman, R. A. (2008). Vocabulary development across adolescence:Text-based analyses. In A. Stavans, & I. Kupferberg (Eds.), Studies in language
and language education:Essays in honor of Elite Olshtain (pp. 4774). Jerusalem:Magnes
Press.
Perfetti, C.A. (2007). Reading ability:Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 11, 127.
Ragnarsdttir, H. & Strmqvist, S. (2005). The development of generic maur/man for the
construction of discourse stance in Icelandic and Swedish. Journal of Pragmatics, 37,
143155.
Ragnarsdttir, H., Aparici, M., Cahana-Amitay, D., van Hell, J., & Vigui, A. (2002). Verbal
structure and content in written discourse: Expository and narrative texts. Written
Language & Literacy, 5, 6994.
Ravid, D. (2004a). Later lexical development in Hebrew:Derivational morphology revisited.
In R. A.Berman (Ed.), Language development across childhood and adolescence (pp. 53
82). Amsterdam, Netherlands:John Benjamins.
Ravid, D. (2004b). Emergence of linguistic complexity in written expository texts:Evidence
from later language acquisition. In D. Ravid & H. Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot (Eds.), Perspectives
on language and language development (pp. 337355). Dordrecht, Netherlands:Kluwer.
Ravid, D. (2006). Semantic development in textual contexts during the school years: Noun
Scale analyses. Journal of Child Language, 33, 791821.
Ravid, D. (2011). Spelling morphology: The psycholinguistics of Hebrew spelling. Berlin,
Germany:Springer Verlag.
Ravid, D. & Berman, R.A. (2006). Information density in the development of spoken and written narratives in English and Hebrew. Discourse Processes, 41, 117149.
Ravid, D. & Berman, R.A. (2009). Developing linguistic register across text types:The case of
modern Hebrew. Pragmatics and Cognition, 17, 108145.
Ravid, D. & Berman, R. A. (2010). Developing noun phrase complexity across adolescence:Atext-embedded analysis. First Language, 30, 129.
Ravid, D. & Levie, R. (2010). Adjectives in the development of text production:Lexical, morphological and syntactic analyses. First Language, 30, 2755.
Ravid, D. & Cahana-Amitay, D. (2005). Verbal and nominal expression in narrating conflict
situations in Hebrew. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 157183.
Ravid, D. & Tolchinsky, L. (2002). Developing linguistic literacy: A comprehensive model.

Journal of Child Language, 29, 419448.
Reilly, J. S., Jisa, H., & Berman, R. A. (2002). Propositional attitudes: Development of modal
expression. Written Language & Literacy, 5(2), 183218.
Reilly, J.S., Zamora, A., & McGivern, R.F. (2005). Acquiring perspective in English:The development of stance. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 185207.
Rimmer, W. (2008). Putting grammatical complexity in context. Literacy, 42, 2935.
Salas, N. (2010). Developmental and discursive underpinnings in the expression of Spanish NPs
(Unpublished Masters thesis) University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Sandbank, A. (2004). Writing narrative text: A developmental and crosslinguistic study
(Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). Tel Aviv University, Israel.
Scott, C. (2004). Syntactic ability in children and adolescents with language and learning disabilities. In R. A.Berman (Ed.), Language development across childhood and adolescence
(pp. 111134). Amsterdam, Netherlands:John Benjamins.
Slobin, D.I. (1996). From thought and language to thinking for speaking. In J. J.Gumperz
& S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 7096). Cambridge,
Slobin, D.I. (2001). Form-function relations:How do children find out what they are? In M.
Bowerman & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development
(pp. 406449). Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.
Slobin, D.I. (2004a). The many ways to search for a frog:Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In S. Strmqvist & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative:Typological and contextual perspective (pp. 219257). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
Slobin, D. I. (2004b). Relating events in translation. In D. Ravid & H. B. Shyldkrot (Eds.),
Perspectives on language and language development:Essays in honor of Ruth A.Berman (pp.
115130). Dordrecht, Netherlands:Kluwer.
Strmqvist, S., Johansson, V., Kriz, S., Ragnarsdttir, R., & Ravid, D. (2002). Towards a
cross-linguistic comprison of lexical quanta in speech and writing. Written Language &
Literacy, 5, 4568.
Tolchinsky, L., Johansson, V., & Zamora, A. (2002). Text openings and closings in writing and
speech:Autonomy and differentiation. Written Language & Literacy, 2, 9254.
Tolchinsky, L. (2004).The nature and scope of later language development. In R. A.Berman
(Ed.), Language development across childhood and adolescence (pp. 233248). Amsterdam,
Netherlands:John Benjamins.
Tolchinsky, L. & Rosado, E. (2005). The effect of literacy, text type, and modality on the use of
grammatical means for agency alternation in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 209237.
Verhoeven, L., Aparici, M., Cahana-Amitay, D., van Hell, J., Kriz, S., & Vigui, A. (2002). Clause
packaging in writing and speech: A cross-linguistic developmental analysis. Written
Language & Literacy, 5, 135162.
Wulff, S. (2008). Rethinking idiomacity:Ausage-based approach. London/NY:Continuum.
APPENDIX*
High School Boys Personal-Experience Written Narrative
1 When Iwas in the seventh grade,
2 Ihad a conflict with a boy
[AV-TMP preposed]
[MC]
3 who was in a few of my classes.
[RC]
4 As it turned out,
[AV-CIR preposed]
5 his father was an executive vice-president at the company
[MC]
6 where my father worked.
[RC]
7 The boy was constantly giving me grief,
[MC]
8 saying
[AV-CIR=NF]
CP1
CP2
9 that {if Iever did anything} {to upset him,} he would have my father
fired. [CM]
10<if Iever did anything>
<AV-CDN]
11<to upset him>
<CM=NF>
12 Iknew
MC
13 this was ridiculous,
CM
14 but nevertheless it was plenty annoying.
CO
15 The boy was not just annoying to me,
MC
16 he had conflicts with at least ten other people
CO
17 Iknew,
RC
18 not exaggerating.
AV-CCS=NF
19 So one day we went to the counseling office at the school.
MC
20 The counselor told us
MCJ
CP3
CP4
CP5
21 that {since the teachers had not reported anything} we had no proof of
the boys actions. CM
22< since the teachers had not reported anything>
<AV-REA>
23 so the administration at the school did nothing.
<AV-RES>
24 Ivisited the principal
MC
25 but he did not take any action either,
CO
26 so the boy kept up his incessant pestering.
<AV-RES.
27 And one day Ifinally snapped.
MC
28 When the teacher was out of the room,
AV-TEM preposed
29 the boy said something to me,
MCJ
30 and Iturned around
CO
31 and confronted him.
C0-EL
32 The boy told me
MC
33 that Iwould not {or could not} do anything to him,
CM
34<or could not>
<CO-GAP>
35 so Iproved him wrong.
AV-RES
36 Ihit him,
MCJ
37 and from that day on he stayed away from me.
CO
38 Iprobably should not have resorted to that action,
MC
39 but nothing else {I had done} worked.

40<I had done>
CO
<RC>
CP6
CP7
CP8
CP9
CP10
Legend:AV=Adverbial Clause, AV-CND=Conditional, AV-CCS=Circumstantial, AV- TMP=Temporal Clause,

CM=Complement Clause, CO=Coordinate Clause, CP=Clause Package, MC=Main Clause, NF=Non-Finite
Clause, RC=Relative Clause.
CHAPTER3
Two Metaphors for Writing

Research and Their Implications for
WritingInstruction
PIETRO BOSCOLO
ver the past three decades, writing has turned out to be a particularly rich
source of questions and problems for psychological researchespecially
compared with some other subjects, with an even longer research tradition (e.g.,
reading and mathematics). The reason for this fecundity may lie in the dual identity
of school writing:as an academic and cross-disciplinary ability, on the one hand, and
a powerful communication tool, on the other. Both identities have greatly stimulated
research, with different theoretical and methodological approaches. In its academic
function, writing is basically a tool for elaborating and acquiring knowledge, not only
in the literary domain to which it traditionally belongs, but across all disciplines. The
transactional function of writing, in which Britton and colleagues synthesized
British students expository and persuasive writing in the 1970s (Britton, Burgess,
Martin, McLeod, & Rosen, 1975), definitely prevails after primary school, and students are progressively trained to expose and order their knowledge through writing.
The development of writing as an elaboration tool is cognitively demanding, since
writers have to learn to use decontextualized language in written form, which implies
the coordination of multiple cognitive processes (Snow & Uccelli, 2009); writing is
really a tool for learning, but not an easy-to-use one! Starting from the early 1980s,
cognitive psychology has been investigating the process of writing and the difficulties that novice writers deal with when carrying out an academic writing task.
Writing is not only elaboration, however, it is also a social action that takes
place in a context. The communicative function of writing is emphasized by the
socio-cultural approach, in which perspectives on language and cognition are
integrated. According to this approach, literacy is viewed as a complex set of interactive practices, which are situated in social and cultural contexts, including the school,
workplace, Internet space, and the new media of the digital universe. From a psychological point of view, reference is made to Vygotsky (1978), who underlined the
influence of the social and cultural contexts on cognitive development; and from a
linguistic point of view, to Bakhtin (1981, 1986), who conceptualized language
oral and writtenas dialogue, and social interactions as the origins of speech genres.
Each of the two identities of writing take on a different importance in writing
instruction. The communicative identity is often neglected in school, the only
audience for student writers is usually their teachers, who are mainly concerned
with how students write, rather than to whom. However, the cognitive and the
socio-cultural approaches compete for an exhaustive perspective of the development of writing, and both offer important applications as well as implications for
writing instruction, particularly for struggling writers.
The aim of this chapter is to compare the contributions of the two approaches
to relevant aspects of writing development, and to suggest a possible integration
for the instruction of struggling writers. The contributions will be illustrated
with reference to two metaphors:mechanism for the cognitive approach, and
participation for the socio-cultural approach. Ametaphor can be useful to the
degree to which it helps a writerand a readerto condense into few words
some essential features of a phenomenon or, in the case of writing, an ability
or practice. However, it can be limiting, in that focusing on some features may
lead to neglecting or underestimating other important aspects. My aim is not,
however, to provide an exhaustive account of the two perspectives, but to highlight a few aspects in which integration seems necessary. Therefore, Ithink that
condensing the most important features of the two approaches in unifying labels
may be a helpful procedure for stimulating reflection on some open questions of
writing instruction.
TWO METAPHORS FOR TWO OPPOSING APPROACHES

TOWRITING
From the cognitive perspective, writing development can be compared to the

functioning of a mechanismwhere the mechanism can carry out the operations
required to produce a limited variety of objects (texts, or written productions).
Differently from many physical mechanisms, the writing mechanism learns
and becomes more complex, progressively including new functions and genres,
as well as self-awareness. A good writer is one who can produce well-planned,
generated, and revised texts, and is able to monitor all the phases of his/her own
production. The word mechanism does not take on a derogatory meaning:a mechanism underlies the early short sentences of a first grader as well as a scientists or
novelists mature written productions. When the mechanism does not function
adequately, it must be helped or repaired. Writing researchers have devised various tools that can be used to improve the workings of the mechanism: procedural facilitation (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987), practice in low-level skills such
as spelling and transcription (Berninger, 2000; Berninger & Amtmann, 2003;
Berninger etal., 2002; Berninger etal.,1997; Berninger etal., 1998), and teaching
of self-regulation strategies (Graham, 2006; Harris & Graham, 1996).
The socio-cultural approach focuses on writing as a participation tool. Writing
does not only imply the functioning of an individual mechanism; through writing, an individual communicates ideas and feelings, and also participates in a
community of discourse by sharing words, sentences, and genres already used by
past writers, and will also be used by others in the future (Kostouli, 2009; Prior,
2006). From this perspective, the meanings conveyed through writing are not the
static features of written words. In fact, meanings can be modified and enriched
that is, negotiated between the participants of social interactions. Whereas in
the cognitive approach the processes of writing are cognitive operations, in the
socio-cultural approach processes are social interactions (Kamberelis, 1999).
Before schooling, children discover literacy through the practices and activities
of their everyday lives, from which the functions of written language begin to emerge
(Tolchinsky, 2006). In school, children find a new context, in which they learn to
re-think and express their everyday experiences within scientific discourse and its
symbolic forms, in particular written language and genres (Boscolo, 2008). Learning
to write means learning genres. The view of genre is different in the cognitive and
socio-cultural approaches: whereas the former basically considers the genres that
characterize school writingnarrative, descriptive, expository, argumentativeas
structures for knowledge organization, the socio-cultural approach views a genre as
a typified (oral or written) response to situations that are culturally or socially construed as recurrent. Therefore, from a socio-cultural perspective there are as many
genres as there are situations in which people usually interact, although only a certain number of them assume a written form and conventional features.
The two metaphors have different implications and potentialities for writing
instruction. On the one hand, the mechanism metaphor seems to be particularly
appropriate for representing the complex set of processes and strategies which writing comprises. The metaphor is even more appropriate for novice and struggling
writers, for whom the mechanism can be a source of difficulties. On the other hand,
participation represents the social componentor meaningof writing that is
often forgotten in writing instruction. The two views of writing are now compared
in relation to writing development.
TWO VIEWS OF WRITING DEVELOPMENT
In the 1980s, Bereiter and Scardamalias (1987) cognitive model of writing conceptualized development in terms of increasing working memory capacity, thanks
Tw o M etap h o r s f o r W r i t i n g R e s e a r c h [ 3 5 ]
to which a child becomes progressively able to deal with the demands of school
writing tasks, to overcome the limitations of oral conversation as a communication
tool, and to elaborate, not only retrieve, knowledge. Over the past two decades, the
study of writing has gained from neuro-scientific research, which has greatly contributed to a new conceptualization of writing development:a dynamic interaction
of genetic and neuropsychological factors, on the one hand, and social factors, on
the other. Writing systems are re-organized during early and middle childhood, and
this re-organization involves three main developmental changes:the transition to
true cognitive writing; the transition to integrated reading-writing, and the transition to flexible adaptations of written texts during revision (Berninger & Chanquoy,
2009). We will now focus on flexibility and its different meanings according to the
two metaphors.
Although rigidity is a limitation of many mechanisms, the writing mechanism
should be flexible, and adaptable to different purposes and situations. The usability of writing in different genres and for different objectives is a basic assumption
of writing instruction, which the cognitive approach has never questioned. In fact,
flexibility in writing has not been investigated in great depth by cognitive psychology, whereas several studies have been conducted on flexibility in reading (e.g.,
Cartwright, 2008). As participation, the word flexibility is rather elusive, referring
to all situations in which human information processors are expected to transform
their knowledge for different communicative goals and shift successfully across
genres. Recently, Berninger and Chanquoy (2009) have analyzed the problem of
increasing flexibility through writing activities in school. Abasic tool is represented
by revision, a process that is often neglected in the teaching of writing. The production of a good text requires continuous revision; that is, continuously modifying a draft until the writer feels satisfied with the result. Learning to revise requires
incorporating self-guided processes in a reading-writing system. Through numerous studies on childrens revising, Chanquoy (2009) has found that separating the
processes of translating from revisinga type of procedural facilitationhelps primary and middle school students revise better, by focusing on deep rather than surface corrections. Students may be helped to revise through self-questioning guides,
which make them more aware of what they write and of how to improve the written
text.
Although improving revision skills contributes to improved text production,
genre rigidity may be an obstacle to flexibility in school writing. As mentioned earlier, primary school students experience a limited number of conventional writing
genresnarrative, descriptive, argumentative, sometimes also poeticand the
number is progressively reduced through the school grades:narrative writing, in
particular, tends to disappear in middle school. In the case of narrative, primary
school students often are taught to write personal accounts and invented stories
according to a model or scheme, influenced by story grammars (e.g., Stein &
Glenn, 1979). Although revising can foster writing flexibility regardless of genres,
within-genre flexibility is also needed. Iwill go back to this question at the end
of the chapter.
In sum, according to the cognitive perspective, flexibility is the outcome of a
writers varied practice of processes and tasks. How is flexibility conceptualized in
the socio-cultural approach? From this perspective, rigidity is not in the writer but
in the context of academic literacy in which writing is taught and learned, and it is
apparent when children are not allowed to experience writing with different, rather
than the regular media and genres. As a well-known scholar of childrens writing
argued (Dyson, 1992), if a curriculum is to be truly responsive to diversity, truly
child-centered, it must be permeable enough to allow for childrens ways of participating in school literacy events (p.41). Arecent paper by Christianakis (2011)
illustrates this view of flexibility with regard to a specific phase of writing development:the transition from drawing to writing. Christianakis questions the traditional view of writing development, according to which drawing is a preliminary
step to writing. Her study, conducted with fifth graders, aimed at answering two
questions: how writing and drawing function in childrens texts, and how teaching practices shape writing development. Christianakis (2011) analyzed the writing activities of a fifth grade class over a one-year period, using an ethnographic
methodology and collecting hundreds of writing samples, as well as audiotaping
childrens conversations. Her findings demonstrated that children integrated visual
and written symbols, and that limiting childrens use of semiotic resources during
writing may discourage and limit their writing development. Flexibility characterizes the use of different media, such as music and drawing, as well as written language, since the emphasis is on communicating rather than on learning the rules
by which a mechanism can function adequately. Christianakis (2011) argues that,
as children progress through school grades, there is also a gradual shift in the use of
paper (from unlined to parallel horizontal lines), which represents the ideological
and developmental pressure to move toward academic writing (p.23).
From a similar position, Dyson (1999a) examined the nature of childrens
recontextualization of texts, that is, their appropriation of meanings, characters,
and stories from the media, such as movies, which is usually contrasted or ignored
by teachers. In any classroom, there are official and nonofficial social spheres.
Particularly in early school classrooms, the official sphere is guided by teachers
who implement the literacy curriculum, and exert control over how children make
learning experiences, being concerned with appropriate language and genre use. It
is through the negotiation with nonofficial school worlds represented by popular
media that children learn and develop. Establishing a shared interpersonal frame
in the official school world requires teachers and students to collaboratively transform that world in ways that allow children to preserve a sense of agency and move
into new social and textual spaces (p.369). From this perspective, it does not make
sense to study childrens compositions by focusing only on print, without considering their multimedia experience. Therefore, flexibility has a different meaning in
the cognitive and socio-cultural approaches:it regards cognitive competency in the

former, and appropriation and invention of literacy tools, in the latter.
The Two Competitive Approaches:Is Integration Possible?
At the Writing Across the Borders Conference in Santa Barbara, Graham (2008)
proposed 13 evidence-based recommendations for teaching writing to students in
grades 4 to 12. The recommendations were based on the results of experimental and
quasi-experimental intervention studies, and single-subject design and qualitative
studies of teaching of writing practices, through which the effectiveness of interventions in different classroom contexts was tested. The recommendations, supported
by different levels of evidence, represent a reliable picture of the teaching of writing in elementary and middle school. The emphasis is clearly on the use of explicit
teaching to shape writing competence, although the importance of a free and collaborative context for learning to write is underlined, as suggested by the process
approach, which has been adopted by many language skills teachers since the 1970s
(Pritchard & Honeycutt, 2006). Although the recommendations have not been presented as the official cognitive perspective on the teaching of writing, the Presenter
is, in fact, an outstanding cognitive scholar of writing. Moreover, reference to cognitive processing is evident in almost all recommendations, which means that they can
be considered a manifesto of the cognitive view of writing instruction:
1. Teach youngsters strategies for the basic processes of writing.
2. Set clear and specific goals for writing.
3. Teach students how to write more sophisticated sentences (e.g., sentence
combining).
4. Make students use prewriting activities to help in collecting and organizing
ideas.
5. Create a positive writing environment with student interaction and personalized instructional assistance.
6. Teach students strategies and procedures to improve summarizing skills.
7. Develop instructional arrangements where students can write (plan, draft,
revise, etc.) together.
8. Have students use word processing.
9. Propose writing activities designed to sharpen students skills of inquiry.
10. Provide good models for each type of text.
11. Ask struggling writers to monitor their writing performance.
12. Provide time to write.
13. Do not teach grammar using traditional methods.
The validity of these recommendations is clearly unquestionable. If they are
read in the light of the two metaphors, however, they appear to fit only one, that
is the mechanism metaphor. Thus, to keep the promise made at the beginning of
this chapter regarding a possible integration of the two approaches, and keeping in
mind the participation metaphor, Isuggest adding three other recommendations to
the listfirst of all, the problem of assessment. In the cognitive perspective, writing
assessment has two functions. On the one hand, it focuses on the qualities of writing
that best represent its elaborative function:coherence, text cohesion, and organization. A well-written text reflects a writers coherent representation of knowledge
as well as his/her mastery of the processes of planning, translation, and revision,
which make a text easily readable. The second and more instructionally relevant
function is attention to the processes of writing: for instance, Chanquoys cited
studies of childrens revision suggest ways to teach them to revise as well as, and
most importantly, to assess the quality of revision processes. From a socio-cultural
perspective, the recommendation mainly regards dynamic assessment, based on
Vygotskys (1978) concept of the zone of proximal development, according to
which the emphasis is not on a students level of achievement, but on the amount
and quality of help he or she needs to attain a higher level of performance. This is
particularly important for struggling writers, whose learning potentialities are the
starting point for writing instruction.
Another recommendation that is lacking, from both perspectives, regards the
motivation to write. Writing is not only a cognitive matter. Writers have beliefs,
motivation, and affect when writing:they have self-efficacy beliefs regarding their
functioning, and feel more or less motivated to write according to the purposes,
topics, and audience for which writing is used. The two approaches view motivation in quite different ways. From the cognitive perspective, motivation to write is
a relationship between the student-writer and a task, which includes two types of
student perceptions. The first type regards how positively or negatively a student
perceives his/her writing competence. This perception, in turn, affects self-efficacy
beliefs, that is, the degree to which a student feels able to carry out a writing task
successfully. The second type of perception regards how stimulating, challenging,
or interesting writing and writing tasks are for a student. According to this view of
motivation to write, teachers should be concerned with giving students attractive or
interesting writing tasks, which should encourage them to write willingly and learn
to appreciate writing. In the socio-cultural approach, motivation is a characteristic
of the context rather than of the task. Awriting task is not more or less interesting,
but meaningful, to the degree to which students can find authentic opportunities
for expressing and communicating in written language.
When teachers and students give overwhelming attention to the functioning of
the mechanism, motivational aspects take on a less important role, and the interestingness of topics and tasks is not sufficient to increase the low self-efficacy beliefs of
struggling students. The participation metaphor, with its emphasis on the meaning
of writing, suggests the use of authentic situations in which students can experience writing as a meaningful activity. Therefore, the recommendation would be
to make students write in an environment in which writing tasks are meaningfully
related to classroom practices, and to the objectives of the class as a community.

Unfortunately, a struggling writer is often less likely than his/her more competent
classmates to view writing as a meaningful and worthwhile activity, and more likely
to feel a collaborative climate as threatening rather than stimulating. However,
attention to writers difficulties by no means contrasts with a truly participative climate in the classroom.
The last recommendation to be added to the list concerns students beliefs about
writing. Writing development does not only regard improving the mechanism or
broadening participation, but also how a student construes writing through school
grades. Teachers should help students, and particularly the younger ones, understand that writing is a mechanism, whose functioning is to be monitored by his/her
owner and improved, to produce texts appropriate to different functions and situations. Students are aware that writing an instant message or inserting a text in a blog
are activities with a true communicative value, quite different from a classroom
composition. The problemand challengeis to help them, and the struggling
ones in particular, realize that the mechanism provides different opportunities for
academic and not-academic use. As far as academic writing is concerned, motivating students to write means convincing them that academic writing makes sense
(Boscolo, 2009). Its meaning is related to how writing is framed in a class activity,
and also the relationship between academic and free writing. Students acquisition, and progressive enrichment, of the meaning of writing in the age of Internet
is an aspect of writing development that cognitive researchers sometimes tend to
forget. Teaching writing, particularly in primary and middle school, does not only
mean providing students with cognitive and linguistic tools, but they also need to
be made aware that through writingtexts, genres, and social interactionsthey
can gain distance from, differentiate, and recontextualize their everyday experiences with and within the scientific discourses of school (Dyson, 1999b, p. 146).
I conclude with a quotation from an outstanding exponent of the
socio-cultural approach (Witte, 1992):An adequate theory of writing must be
able to account for the fact that writing can be both a process of translating ideas
or thoughts into visible language and a process of discovering meaning through
language (p.263). This dual function should inform writing instruction from its
early phases. On the one hand, teachers should teach young writers, and in particular the struggling ones, to translate their ideas into correct and understandable written language, and also make them aware that this translation cannot be
simply mechanical. Writing can also be a tool for discovering new meanings, not
only through new media, as suggested earlier, but also through academic language. In an intervention study (Boscolo, Gelati, & Galvan, 2012), fourth graders were taught to play with the narrative genre by modifying narrative texts
at word level (for instance, they were asked to rewrite a text by beginning each
sentence with the same letter) and content level (e.g., changing the setting or
protagonist). Regardless of the type of change, the new text had to be coherent.
The intervention was conducted in a collaborative classroom climate, in which
the teacher first modeled the change, and then gave help by means of suggestions and stimulations to find new narrative solutions. Results showed that the
intervention increased childrens ability to play with language. In particular, by
creating new stories, children discovered that written language can be used to
produce new meanings, and that its constraintsin this case, story coherence
are not an obstacle but an aid to write enjoyable and often creative texts.
Demonstrating that writing is a meaningful translation process is a challenge for
the teachers of struggling writers.
REFERENCES
Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). The dialogic imagination:Four essays by M.M. Bakhtin (Ed. M. Holquist).
Austin, TX:University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M.M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. (Eds. C. Emerson & M. Holquist).
Austin, TX:University of Texas Press.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale,
NJ:Erlbaum.
Berninger, V.W. (2000). Development of language by hand and its connections to language by
ear, mouth, and eye. Topics of Language Disorders, 20, 6584.
Berninger, V.W., & Amtmann, D. (2003). Preventing written expression disabilities through
early and continuing assessment and intervention for handwriting and/or spelling
problems:Research into practice. In H. L.Swanson, K. R.Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.),
Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 345363). NewYork, NY:Guilford Press.
Berninger, V.W., & Chanquoy, L. (2009). Writing development:What writing is and how it
changes over early and middle childhood. In E. Grigorenko, E. Mambrino, & D. Preiss
(Eds.), Handbook of writing:Amosaic of perspectives and views (pp. 6584). NewYork,
NY:Psychology Press.
Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R., Abbott, S., Brooks, A., Rogan, L.,...Graham, S.
(1997). Treatment of handwriting fluency problems in beginning writing: Transfer
from handwriting to composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 652666.
Berninger, V.W., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R.D., Begay, K., Coleman, K.B., Curtin, G.,...Graham,
S. (2002). Teaching spelling and composition alone and together:Implications for the
simple view of writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 291304.
Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R., Brooks, A., Abbott, S., Rogan, L.,...Graham, S.
(1998). Early interventions for spelling problems: Teaching spelling units of varying
size within a multiple connections framework. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90,
587605.
Boscolo, P. (2008). Writing in primary school. In C. Bazerman (Ed.), Handbook of research on
writing (pp. 293309). NewYork/London:Erlbaum.
Boscolo, P. (2009). Engaging and motivating children to write. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley,
& M. Nystrand (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of writing development (pp. 300312).
London:Sage.
Boscolo, P., Gelati, C., & Galvan, N. (2012). Teaching elementary school students to play with
(1975). The development of writing meanings and genre. Reading & Writing Quarterly,
28, 2950.
Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H. (1975). The development of writing
abilities (1118). London:Macmillan.
Cartwright, K.B. (Ed.) (2008). Literacy processes:Cognitive flexibility in learning and teaching.
NewYork, NY:Guilford Press.
Chanquoy, L. (2009). Revision processes. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley, & M. Nystrand
(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of writing development (pp. 8097). London:Sage.
Christianakis, M. (2011). Childrens text development: Drawing, pictures, and writing.
Research in the Teaching of English, 46, 2254.
Dyson, A.H. (1992). The case of the singing scientist. Written Communication, 9, 347.
Dyson, A.H. (1999a). Coach Bombays kids learn to write:Childrens appropriation of media
material for school literacy. Research in the Teaching of English, 33, 367402.
Dyson, A. H. (1999b). Transforming transfer: Unruly children, contrary texts, and the persistence of the pedagogical order. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of
research in education (Vol. 24, pp. 141171). Washington, DC:American Educational
Research Association.
Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis. In C.
MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 187
207). NewYork, NY:Guilford Press.
Graham, S. (2008 February). Evidence-based writing practices: drawing recommendations from
multiple sources. Talk presented at the Writing Across the Borders Conference. Santa
Barbara, CA.
Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (1996). Making the writing process work. Cambridge,
MA:Brookline.
Kamberelis, G. (1999). Genre development and learning: Children writing stories, science
reports, and poems. Research in the Teaching of English, 33, 403460.
Kostouli, T. (2009). A socio-cultural framework: Writing as social practice. In R. Beard, D.
Myhill, J. Riley, & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of writing development (pp.
98116). London:Sage.
Prior, P. (2006). A socio-cultural theory of writing. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J.
Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 5466). NewYork, NY:Guilford
Press.
Pritchard, R.J., & Honeycutt, R.L. (2006). The process approach to writing instruction. In C.
Snow, C. E., & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge of academic language. In D. R. Olson &
N. Torrance (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy (pp. 112133). New York,
NY:Cambridge University Press.
Stein, N.L, & Glenn, C.G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school
children. In R. O.Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (Vol. 2, pp. 53
120). Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
Tolchinsky, L. (2006). The emergence of writing. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J.
Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 8395). NewYork, NY:Guilford
Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Witte, S.P. (1992). Context, text, and intertext:Toward a constructivist semiotic of writing.
Written Communication, 9, 237308.
PART TWO
The Impact of Oral Language Problems

on Written Text Production
CHAPTER4
Spelling in Deaf Children with

Cochlear Implants
Implications for Instruction
HE ATHER H AYES, REBECCA TREIM AN, AND ANN E. GEER S
he ability to spell words accurately is still important in todays world of spellcheckers and technology-inspired shorthand. An adults spelling skills are
considered important markers of literacy attainment (Figueredo & Varnhagen,
2005; Kreiner, Schnakenberg, Green, Costello, & McClin, 2002; Varnhagen,
2000). For children, spelling is crucial not only for academic progress but also for
what it teaches children about their language. School-aged children and adolescents
can benefit from explicit spelling instruction so that they can reap the benefits that
being a good speller offers:increased reading and writing skills and more positive
perceptions by others.
Good spelling skills are important not only for individuals who can hear but also
for people who are deaf or hard of hearing. Arecent survey of deaf college graduates from the National Technical Institute for the Deaf in the U.S. revealed that
89% were required to write on the job every day (Biser, Rubel, & Toscano, 2007).
The employers of these deaf graduates were also surveyed:93% of the employers
reported that good writing skills were necessary for promotion and that poor spelling was one of the most serious problems they saw in their deaf employees.
This chapter aims to describe what we know about spelling in school-aged deaf
children, with a focus on those who use cochlear implants and those who use spoken English as their primary method of communication. We concentrate on this
group, in part, because cochlear implantation in very young deaf children is increasing in the United States and other countries (Kelly, 2011)due to early identification
of deafness and looser criteria for implantation. We begin by describing the English
spelling system and spelling in hearing children and adolescents. We do this, in part,
to remind the reader what is expected of hearing children who are often classmates
of deaf children with cochlear implants. Next, we review the literature on spelling
in deaf children and adolescents with cochlear implants who use spoken English.
Finally, we suggest teaching strategies that can be used to improve deaf childrens
spelling.
THE ENGLISH SPELLING SYSTEM
The spelling system of English, the language that is the focus of this chapter, is often
considered irregular, even chaotic. However, the spellings of many words are more
principled than they might first appear. Many sounds have more than one possible spelling, but contextual, morphological, historical, and visually related factors
often constrain the choice among them (Hayes, Kessler, & Treiman, 2005; Joshi,
Treiman, Carreker, & Moats, 2008; Kessler & Treiman, 2003). Children who know
about these factors do not have to guess randomly among the possible spellings
of a sound. For example, although ll is a possible spelling of /l/, and although it
often occurs at the ends of words, very few English words have double consonants
at the beginnings. This is just one example of how knowledge about how letters
are allowed to be arranged in words, or graphotactic constraints, is highly useful.
(The exception to the rule about initial double consonants is llama. However, it is a
Spanish word that has been adopted by English users, highlighting how knowledge
about word origins informs spelling.) As an example of how morphological knowledge can aid spelling, children can learn that final /t/ is normally spelled as ed when
/t/ is a past tense ending, as in cracked. The ed spelling does not occur when final
/t/ is a part of the same unit of meaning (or morpheme) as the preceding sounds, as
in fact. Thus, graphotactic, morphological, historical, and other information helps
users of English to narrow the possibilities for spelling new words and remember
the spellings of known words.
SPELLING IN TYPICALLY DEVELOPING HEARING CHILDREN

AND ADOLESCENTS
Although the English writing system reflects morphology and other factors to some
extent, the system is primarily alphabetic. Thus, it is most critical for beginners to
learn about its phonological basis. Children need to learn that writing represents
spoken language, and they need to learn to analyze speech at the level of the individual sounds or phonemes:phonemic awareness. Children who can do this, and who
know the letters that are used to represent specific sounds, will be able to produce
phonologically plausible spellings even for words they have not seen before. These
[ 4 6 ] Part II: Impact of Oral Language Problems on Written Text
spellings may be wrong, in that they may not take into account such things as the
context of a phoneme or the morphological structure of a word, but they will usually be readable. For example, the phonologically plausible error scunck for skunk
indicates that the child analyzed the word as a sequence of phonemes and knew a
plausible spelling for each phoneme. One thing the child did not know, apparently,
is that ck cannot follow n, one of the more subtle graphotactic patterns of English.
Difficulties in phonemic awareness can lead to spellings that do not fully represent a
words phonemes, such as suk for skunk. Such an error communicates less well than
scunck because the reader might assume that the writer of suk intended to spell suck.
Hearing children often have some initial difficulties with phonemic awareness, causing them to produce errors like suk for skunk (Treiman, 1993). However,
hearing children normally overcome these difficulties within the first few years of
school. During this time, they also learn about the roles of morphology (Treiman
& Cassar, 1996)and graphotactics (Cassar & Treiman, 1997; Hayes, Treiman, &
Kessler, 2006)in choosing among alternative spellings of phonemes. Even by the
age of six years, hearing children pay attention (even if not explicitly) to some of
the spelling patterns in English. Becoming a good speller thus requires sensitivity
to phonology, morphology, and other properties of English. Rote memorization of
letter patterns is not enough for successful spelling.
As the role of language experience and phonology in spelling became better understood, some researchers and educators postulated that children can and
should learn to spell through incidental learning and self-discovery (e.g., Goodman,
1967). According to this view, young children learn about spelling through observing words in books as they are being read to and by trying to spell words on their
own, often referred to as invented spelling. As children read more and more, they
learn many spellings incidentally, as they are exposed to them in reading. However,
research suggests that incidental learning and self-discovery are not sufficient. For
example, the National Reading Panel, which was created by the U.S. Congress to
examine research on the most effective approaches to teaching children how to read,
recommended that explicit instruction about the relationships between writing and
speech should be included in every reading program (National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development, 2000). The research reviewed by the National
Reading Panel shows that explicit instructionthat is, direct and systematic explanation of a concept through examples and step-by-step demonstrationsis more
effective than the sort of implicit or incidental instruction proposed by advocates of
a self discovery approach. Children learn some spellings incidentally, as they come
across them while reading (Cunningham, Perry, Stanovich, & Share, 2002; Share,
1999), but such learning can be slow and incomplete. This happens, in part, because
childrens attention is not typically on spelling when they are reading for meaning.
Learning to spell, particularly in a complex writing system such as that of
English, is not a simple or quick task for children who can hear, a fact that teachers
of children who are deaf sometimes overlook. In the next section, we turn to the
case of deaf children and adolescents who wear cochlear implants.
Sp e ll i n g i n D e af C h i l d r e n w i t h C o c h l e a r I m pla n ts [ 4 7 ]
CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF SPELLING IN CHILDREN AND

ADOLESCENTS WHO WEAR COCHLEAR IMPLANTS
Children who are deaf and who wear cochlear implants have more auditory access
and more opportunity to acquire spoken language and phonemic awareness than
profoundly deaf children without cochlear implants. Thus, it is not surprising that
children with cochlear implants are better readers than profoundly deaf children
who do not wear implants (Vermeulen, van Bon, Schreuder, Knoors, & Snik, 2007).
Many children and adolescents with cochlear implants achieve reading levels that
are close to those of same-aged hearing peers (Geers, 2003; Geers & Hayes, 2011).
Before the advent of cochlear implants, few deaf teenagers reached age-appropriate
reading skills (Geers & Moog, 1989). The effect of cochlear implantation on the
development of spoken language skills and the resultant literacy skills of deaf children is nothing short of astonishing.
Few studies have examined in detail the spelling of deaf children and adolescents with cochlear implants. The largest and most detailed study to date is that
of Hayes, Kessler, and Treiman (2011). These investigators used a picture spelling
task to study a group of 39 deaf children with cochlear implants who used spoken
English. Children (mean age=8.97years) wrote the names of 80 pictured objects.
The implant group spelled more poorly than hearing children of the same age
(mean accuracy=55% for deaf, 66% for hearing). However, 74% of the deaf children had accuracy rates within one standard deviation of the mean for the hearing
group, indicating that many deaf children with cochlear implants spell about as well
as hearing age-mates. When reading ability was held constant, differences between
the groups were no longer significant.
Hayes and colleagues (2011) analyzed the childrens spelling errors for what
they show about the strategies that the children used. If a child makes mostly
phonologically plausible errors, or those that are based on how a word sounds
(e.g., fosit for faucet), then the child can be assumed to have the capacity to use
a phonological spelling strategy. This is advantageous because the reader will
probably be able to understand the childs intent. If the childs errors are unrelated to the sounds in the word (e.g., rssb for dress), then the child may be guessing or relying on rote memorization of letter patterns. In the study of Hayes and
colleagues, hearing children were much more likely than children with implants
to make plausible errors. Of the errors made by hearing children, 75% were phonologically plausible, as compared to 44% for the implanted children. Although
this latter figure is relatively low, it is higher than the figure of less than 20%
that was observed in a previous study of deaf children without cochlear implants
(Harris & Moreno, 2004). Thus, although deaf children with cochlear implants
do not make as many phonologically plausible errors as hearing age-mates, they
make a higher proportion of these good errors than expected from previous studies of deaf children without implants. The deaf children with cochlear
implants in Hayes et al. (2011) made the same proportion of transposition
errors (e.g., wrom for worm) as the hearing group (5%). This finding is important
because, in previous studies of deaf children without cochlear implants, the proportion of transposition errors was higher in deaf children than hearing children
(Aaron, Keetay, Boyd, Palmatier, & Wacks, 1998; Leybaert, 2000; Leybaert &
Alegria, 1995). Transposition errors suggest the child is relying on rote memorization of letter strings (Aaron etal., 1998), and it appears that this strategy is less
common in deaf children with cochlear implants than in deaf children without
implants. In summary, although the deaf children with cochlear implants did not
use a phonological strategy to the same extent as the hearing group, they often
did use phonology to guide their spellings and did not appear to rely solely on
visual rote memorization.
Phonological and spelling skills continue to develop over the school years
for students with cochlear implants. Geers and Hayes (2011) studied spelling,
reading, and expository writing in a group of 112 adolescents from the U.S.and
Canada who had used a cochlear implant since preschool (and so had more than
10years of experience with the implants) and 46 hearing adolescents of the same
ages. Spelling accuracy, as measured by a picture spelling task, was strongly correlated with both reading comprehension and expository writing abilities, as measured by ratings from National Technical Institute for the Deaf faculty members
(Schley & Albertini, 2005). Deaf teenagers with implants were significantly poorer
spellers (mean=67% correct) than teenagers with normal hearing (mean=80%
correct). They also showed more variability in spelling performance (standard
deviation=22) than their hearing age-mates (standard deviation=10). More than
half (55%) of the cochlear-implant users exhibited spelling accuracy scores that
were within one standard deviation of age-matched students with normal hearing,
indicating that hearing loss did not preclude the development of typical spelling
skills. However, when the students spelling errors were evaluated for phonological plausibility, only 30% of the deaf teenagers scored within one standard deviation of hearing age-mates. These results are similar to those found in younger deaf
children with implants (Hayes et al., 2011)some deaf children with implants
are able to use phonological strategies to some extent during spelling, but not as
well as hearing age-mates. Importantly, but perhaps not surprisingly, greater use of
a phonological strategy was associated with higher reading, spelling, and expository writing scores among the deaf adolescents with implants. Furthermore, use of
a phonological spelling strategy was strongly related to other measures of phonological skill, including elision (deleting phonemes in orally presented stimuli to create one word from another), nonword repetition (repeating nonsense words from
an auditory model) and oral reading of nonwords, sometimes called word attack.
Phonologically plausible spelling errors were significantly more likely to occur in
deaf students who used spoken English than those who used signed English and
speech together (sometimes referred to as total communication in the United
States). Thus, use of a phonological strategy for spelling seems to be encouraged by
a focus on the comprehension and production of oral language.
Harris and Terleksti (2011) reported spelling and reading results for a diverse
population of 86 teenagers with severe to profound hearing loss in the United
Kingdom who used either hearing aids or cochlear implants. The hearing-aid users
had more residual hearing than the cochlear-implant users; however, the cochlearimplant users were more likely to be enrolled in regular classrooms with hearing
teenagers. Forty-seven percent of the cochlear-implant users and 33% of the hearing-aid users preferred speech only for communication. In this study, the cochlearimplant users did not show an advantage over hearing-aid users in spelling accuracy
or phonetic spelling errors. The hearing-aid users not only had greater residual
hearing but started using hearing aids at a very young age (mean age at diagnosis =
12.78 months). The cochlear-implant users had less residual hearing and presumably did not receive useable auditory input until they received a cochlear implant
at an average age of 3 years (early implant group) or 7 years, 5 months (late implant
group). The earlier access to sound in the group with hearing aids may have promoted development of phonological skills and literacy. The importance of small
amounts of aided residual hearing prior to cochlear implantation, along with
implantation at young ages, has already been established for acquisition of spoken
language (Nicholas & Geers, 2006). Hayes et al. (2011) examined whether age
at implant predicted spelling skill or phonological plausibility of errors. Although
they did not find age at implant effects in their study of spelling, the authors explain
that they did not test many children who received implants at 1 or 2 years of age. It
is possible that, as deaf children who receive implants at 1 or 2 years of age grow up,
benefits may be seen for very early cochlear implantation.
IMPLICATIONS FOR INSTRUCTION
Research on spelling in deaf children with cochlear implants who communicate

orally indicates that these children can use phonological strategies to some degree,
as hearing children do. This leads to the question of whether spelling instruction
for these children should be any different than spelling instruction for hearing children. We believe that there is a need for modification of instruction to deaf children
with implants for two reasons:poorer vocabulary and poorer phonemic awareness
skills than in hearing children (Hayes, Geers, Treiman, & Moog, 2009; Johnson &
Goswami, 2010). Limited vocabulary and poor phonemic awareness are related to
reading difficulties, which lead to limited experiences with text. These have implications for spelling development, and thus some degree of specialized instruction is
necessary for deaf children with cochlear implants.
The field of deaf education offers little to guide teachers of students with
cochlear implants on spelling practices. One resource is the Laurent Clerc
National Deaf Education Center at Gallaudet University in Washington, DC,
which recommends a number of practices for teaching reading and writing to
deaf students. For example, the Clerc Center website recommends that teachers
encourage invented spellings, or spellings that children attempt without any

instructional help, during writing time (Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education
Center, n.d.). Both laboratory and classroom studies suggest that inventing
spellings improves childrens literacy skills (Clarke, 1988; Ouellette & Snchal,
2008). However, the use of invented spelling is positive only if it occurs together
with systematic phonemic awareness training, such as teaching children to
detect, identify, and manipulate individual sounds in words, and only if the child
receives feedback on the invented spellings (Rieben, Ntamakiliro, Gonthier, &
Fayol, 2005). Inventing spellings not only allows children the opportunity to
explore sounds and letter patterns but also provides information for teachers. In
particular, teachers can analyze spellings for error types in order to guide future
instruction.
Other recommendations put forward by the Clerc Center run counter to what
current research suggests about best practices in teaching reading and writing to
young children. For example, the Clerc Center recommends that teachers should
decrease activities such as explicit, isolated instruction of grammar, vocabulary,
spelling, and other literacy-related skills. These recommendations seem inconsistent with a large body of evidence, mentioned earlier in this chapter, that such
activities are important and should, if anything, be increased. Explicit instruction
is especially important for deaf children with cochlear implants who are at risk for
developing poor phonological awareness and literacy skills.
When a child misspells a word, what sort of feedback should a teacher provide? It is not enough to simply tell the child how to spell the word or to tell the
child to look it up in the dictionary. Instead, a teacher may first point out that a
word is misspelled but praise the child for the attempt, such as sounding out the
word or using an analogy approach. Then the teacher may show the child how
his or her spelling compares to the conventional spelling, pointing out similarities or differences between the two. Depending on the type of error, the teacher
may use this opportunity to explain graphotactic rules (e.g., double the s at the
end of a word if the vowel is spelled with one letter, as in pass) or morphological rules (e.g., why dirty is not spelled dirdy, even though that is how the child
may pronounce it). Abrief but meaningful lesson can encourage metalinguistic
discovery and model the thinking process of a successful speller, in this case the
teacher.
Of course, the ability to have a meaningful lesson or teachable moment depends
on a teachers understanding of why words are spelled the way they are. English
spelling conventions seem unwieldy, sometimes forcing teachers to declare, That
word doesnt follow the rulesjust memorize the spelling! However, teachers
would be well served to learn about the factors that constrain spelling and to consider why a child might have made an error. Then the teacher can determine how to
guide the child to the correct spelling. Guided error analysis can be highly effective,
but only if the teacher has a strong understanding of why written English works the
way it does.
CONCLUSION
If teachers of deaf children with cochlear implants analyze spelling errors and use
these errors to provide on-the-spot lessons or to guide future instruction, then students will have the opportunity to gain information explicitly that they otherwise
have to learn incidentally and, in many cases, slowly. As mentioned earlier, hearing
children do not learn the spellings of many words that they come across in reading, even words that they have come across numerous times. Deaf children do not
either. Children will learn spelling patterns faster if they have explicit instruction
and practice. According to this review, this instruction should begin upon school
entry and continue throughout adolescence.
REFERENCES
Aaron, P.G., Keetay, V., Boyd, M., Palmatier, S., & Wacks, J. (1998). Spelling without phonology:Astudy of deaf and hearing children. Reading and Writing, 10(1), 122.
Biser, E., Rubel, L., & Toscano, R.M. (2007). Bending the rules:When deaf writers leave college. American Annals of the Deaf, 152(4), 361373. doi:10.1353/aad.2008.0000
Cassar, M., & Treiman, R. (1997). The beginnings of orthographic knowledge: Childrens
knowledge of double letters in words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 631644.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.4.631
Clarke, L.K. (1988). Invented versus traditional spelling in first graders writings:Effects on
learning to spell and read. Research in the Teaching of English, 22(3), 281309.
Cunningham, A.E., Perry, K.E., Stanovich, K.E., & Share, D.L. (2002). Orthographic learning during reading:Examining the role of self-teaching. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 82(3), 185199. doi:10.1016/S0022-0965(02)00008-5
Figueredo, L., & Varnhagen, C.K. (2005). Didnt you run the spell checker? Effects of type of
spelling error and use of a spell checker on perceptions of the author. Reading Psychology,
26(4/5), 441458. doi:10.1080/02702710500400495
Geers, A. E. (2003). Predictors of reading skill development in children with early
cochlear implantation. Ear and Hearing, 24(Suppl), 59S68S. doi:10.1097/01.
AUD.0000051690.43989.5D
Geers, A.E., & Hayes, H. (2011). Reading, writing, and phonological processing skills of adolescents with 10 or more years of cochlear implant experience. Ear and Hearing, 32,
49S59S. doi:10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181fa41fa
Geers, A.E., & Moog, J.S. (1989). Factors predictive of the development of literacy in profoundly hearing-impaired adolescents. Volta Review, 91(2), 6986.
Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading
Specialist, 6(4), 126135.
Harris, M., & Moreno, C. (2004). Deaf childrens use of phonological coding:Evidence from
reading, spelling, and working memory. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9(3),
253268. doi:10.1093/deafed/enh016
Harris, M., & Terletski, E. (2011). Reading and spelling abilities of deaf adolescents with
cochlear implants and hearing aids. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16(1),
2434. doi:10.1093/deafed/enq031
Hayes, H., Geers, A. E., Treiman, R., & Moog, J. S. (2009). Receptive vocabulary development in deaf children with cochlear implants: Achievement in an intensive
auditory-oral educational setting. Ear and Hearing, 30(1), 128135. doi:10.1097/

AUD.0b013e3181926524
Hayes, H., Kessler, B., & Treiman, R. (2005). English spelling:Making sense of a seemingly chaotic writing system. Perspectives: The International Dyslexia Association,
Summer, 810.
Hayes, H., Kessler, B., & Treiman, R. (2011). Spelling of deaf children who use cochlear
implants. Scientific Studies of Reading. doi:10.1080/10888438.2010.528480
Hayes, H., Treiman, R., & Kessler, B. (2006). Children use vowels to help them spell consonants.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94(1), 2742. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2005.11.001
Johnson, C., & Goswami, U. (2010). Phonological awareness, vocabulary, and reading in deaf
children with cochlear implants. Journal of Speech, Language, & Hearing Research, 53(2),
237261. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0139)
Joshi, R. M., Treiman, R., Carreker, S., & Moats, L. C. (2008). How words cast their spell.
American Educator, (Winter), 643.
Kelly, R. (2011, February 7). Cochlear profit grows amid rising demand for hearing aids. The
Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com
Kessler, B., & Treiman, R. (2003). Is English spelling chaotic? Misconceptions concerning its
irregularity. Reading Psychology, 24(3/4), 267.
Kreiner, D., Schnakenberg, S., Green, A., Costello, M., & McClin, A. (2002). Effects of spelling errors on the perception of writers. The Journal of General Psychology, 129(1), 517.
doi:10.1080/00221300209602029
Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center. (n.d.). LiteracyIt all connects. Retrieved
April 1, 2011, from http://clerccenter.gallaudet.edu/Clerc_Center/Information_and_
Resources/Info_to_Go/Language_and_Literacy/Literacy_at_the_Clerc_Center/
Literacy-It_All_Connects.html
Leybaert, J. (2000). Phonology acquired through the eyes and spelling in deaf children. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 75(4), 291318. doi:10.1006/jecp.1999.2539
Leybaert, J., & Alegria, J. (1995). Spelling development in deaf and hearing children:Evidence
for use of morpho-phonological regularities in French. Reading and Writing, 7(1),
89109. doi:10.1007/BF01026949
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National
Reading Panel. Teaching children to read:An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Retrieved
March 22, 2014, from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/about/org/der/branches/cdbb/
Pages/nationalreadingpanelpubs.aspx
Nicholas, J. G., & Geers, A. E. (2006). Effects of early auditory experience on the spoken language of deaf children at 3 years of age. Ear and Hearing, 27(3), 286298.
doi:10.1097/01.aud.0000215973.76912.c6
Ouellette, G., & Snchal, M. (2008). Pathways to literacy:Astudy of invented spelling and its
role in learning to read. Child Development, 79(4), 899913.
Rieben, L., Ntamakiliro, L., Gonthier, B., & Fayol, M. (2005). Effects of various early writing practices on reading and spelling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(2), 145166.
Schley, S., & Albertini, J. (2005). Assessing the writing of deaf college students:Reevaluating a
direct assessment of writing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10(1), 96105.
doi:10.1093/deafed/eni006
Share, D. L. (1999). Phonological recoding and orthographic learning: A direct test of the
self-teaching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72(2), 95129.
doi:10.1006/jecp.1998.2481
Treiman, R. (1993). Beginning to spell: A study of first-grade children. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Treiman, R., & Cassar, M. (1996). Effects of morphology on childrens spelling of final consonant clusters. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63(1), 141170. doi:10.1006/
jecp.1996.0045
Varnhagen, C. K. (2000). Shoot the messenger and disregard the message?
Childrens attitudes toward spelling. Reading Psychology, 21(2), 115128.
doi:10.1080/02702710050084446
Vermeulen, A.M., van Bon, W., Schreuder, R., Knoors, H., & Snik, A. (2007). Reading comprehension of deaf children with cochlear implants. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 12(3), 283302. doi:10.1093/deafed/enm017
CHAPTER5
Spelling Acquisition in French Children

with Cochlear Implants
A Case-Study Investigation
SOPHIE BOU TON AND PA SCALE COL
BACKGROUND AND GOAL
Cochlear implantation offers profoundly deaf children access to auditory information about speech that was previously unavailable to them. Each year in France,
nearly 1,500 new cases of severe or profound deafness occur in children, and
approximately 300 children are fitted with cochlear implants (CI) (Avan, Cazals,
Dauman, Denoyelle, & Hardelin, 2006). Access to speech through CI presumably
has important educational implications for deaf children. Previous studies have
shown that some CI children achieve reading levels comparable to hearing children of the same age (e.g., Geers, 2003; Geers, Tobey, Moog, & Brenner, 2008).
However spelling acquisition in these children has been little investigated.
SPELLING ACQUISITION IN FRENCH
Well-specified phonological representations are crucial for successful spelling

since they help children to master the alphabetic principle (Ehri, 1991, 1997).
Spoken words can be spelled either by applying phoneme-to-grapheme correspondence (PGC) rules or by drawing on orthographic knowledge. The application of PGC rules entails the translation of spoken language units (phonemes)
into sublexical written units (graphemes), which are then assembled into words
(phonological procedure). The use of orthographic knowledge gives direct

access to the orthographic word form in the internal lexicon (orthographic procedure). It is generally supposed that PGC rules are used to spell regular words
and pseudowords, whereas knowledge of orthography is used to spell regular
words and words with inconsistent spelling patterns, such as repas (meals) and
danger (danger), which cannot be spelled accurately on the basis of phonological analysis alone (Treiman, 1993). Phoneme-to-grapheme correspondence
(PGC) rules are seen as the bootstrapping mechanism on the basis of which
orthographic knowledge can develop (Ehri, 1991; Morton, 1989; Perfetti, 1991;
Leybaert & Content, 1995). Developmental models of spelling skills based on
the dual-route account of written word processing (Frith, 1986; Morton, 1989)
assume that the two procedures (phonological and orthographic) are acquired
successively, with beginning readers first relying on the phonological procedure
and then shifting to the use of an orthographic procedure. The replacement of
systematic use of the phonological procedure by the use of orthographic procedure may be a gradual process. In a long-term longitudinal study of Frenchspeaking children (Sprenger-Charolles, Siegel, Bchennec, & Serniclaes, 2003),
early phonological skills, as evaluated in the middle of first grade by pseudoword
processing, were correlated with performance on irregular words at the end of
the fourth grade. Share (1999) tested the hypothesis that phonological skills
are critical to the acquisition of word- specific orthographic representations. In
a priming task, children read target pseudowords embedded in short text. Three
days later, each child had to recognize the target from among a set of stimuli
including the original target spelling, a homophonic foil, one visually similar foil
with a letter substitution and another with a transposition of two letters. Target
spellings were correctly identified more often, named more quickly, and spelled
more accurately than all foils.
Alphabetic spelling systems can be classified along an opacity-transparency
continuum according to the degree of consistency of their orthographic code
(Frost, Katz, & Bentin, 1987; Seymour, Aro, & Erskine, 2003; Caravolas,
2004). Transparent or shallow orthographic systems are characterized by their
high degree of consistency and are mainly governed by regular and predictable
PGC in reading and writing. In contrast, opaque or deep systems have many
graphemes with various corresponding phonemes and vice versa, with a large
number of irregular words. A critical aspect of the French written system is
that the phoneme-to-grapheme rules used in spelling are far less consistent
than the grapheme-to-phoneme correspondence (GPC) rules used to read
words (Ziegler, Jacobs, & Stone, 1996). Using GPC rules makes it possible to
read approximately 90% of French words correctly, whereas using PGC rules
only makes it possible to spell half of all French words (Vronis, 1988). French
is also recognized for having a morphophonemic orthography with orthographic and morphological regularities that must be taken into account alongside phoneme-grapheme correspondences in conventional spellings (Deacon,
[ 5 6 ] Part II:Impact of Oral Language Problems on Written Text
Conrad, & Pacton, 2008; Pacton, Fayol, & Perruchet, 2005). Although there
have been studies investigating the development of spelling skills in CI children
in other deep orthographies (e.g. English), the spelling skills of French CI children may differ in some important ways.
The development of the phonological and orthographic procedures in normally hearing (NH) French-speaking children has already been examined (Alegria
& Mousty, 1994, 1996; Casalis, 2003). This chapter extends the study of the
use of these procedures to children with cochlear implants. We concentrate on
cochlear-implanted (CI) childrens spelling of words that are either consistent or
inconsistent with phoneme-to-grapheme correspondence. The main aim of the
study presented here was to determine whether the spelling skills of CI children
are similar to those of NH children despite the difficulties with speech perception
associated with CI. Indeed, whereas NH children learn to write after they have
developed fine-grained phonological representations of spoken words, the phonological representations of children using cochlear implants are less well-developed
phonological representations when they learn to write (Bouton, Serniclaes, & Col,
2012; Geers, Brenner, & Davidson, 2003; Medina & Serniclaes, 2009; Tye-Murray,
Spencer, & Gilbert-Bedia, 1995). Our hypothesis was that speech perception
through cochlear implant devices is unlikely to be sufficient to support accurate
phonological processes, and that CI children would thus encounter difficulties
using phonological representations on a spelling task. Because the acquisition of
orthographic and morphological representations also depends on the development
of phonological representations, we thought that we might also find that CI children experience difficulties using the orthographic procedure to spell words.
SPELLING SKILLS IN CHILDREN WITH COCHLEAR IMPLANTS
A recent study seems to contradict our hypothesis, showing that CI children are not
poorer spellers than NH children (Hayes, Kessler, & Treiman, 2011). In the study
of Hayes etal. 39 English children with CI performed a picture-spelling task with
words of varying length and orthographic complexity. Children were first asked to
name the pictured item and then to spell the name on a line that appeared under
the picture. The authors found that the same word-level factors, such as frequency,
length, and whether the word was a compound word, helped both CI and NH
children. Nevertheless, after controlling for age, reading comprehension, parents
education level, age at implantation, and hearing status, CI children made fewer
phonologically plausible errors1 in the spelling task than NH children. Their findings
suggest that cochlear implants may provide deaf children with enough phonological
information to allow them to rely on phonological processing in spelling tasks, but
also that CI children do not use phonology as successfully as hearing children.
Another study suggests that CI childrens spelling skills are related to the
mode of communication to which they are exposed pre- and postimplantation.
Sp e ll i ng Acqu i s i t i o n i n F r e nch Ch i l d r e n w i t h Co ch l e a r I m pla n ts [57]
The spelling performance of 33 French children using CI (tested between 7;5

and 11;11years) was compared to that of 20 NH children matched on grade
level (Leybaert, Bravard, Sudre, & Cochard, 2009). Twenty of the CI children
had been exposed to cued speech at home and with a speech therapist (CS+)
and 13 had never been exposed to cued speech (CS-). Cued speech is a mode
of communication that visually conveys spoken language at the phonemic level
using eight handshapes corresponding to groups of consonants and four hand
placements to convey vowels. Because cued speech disambiguates lipreading,
it improves the quality of phonemic representations and allows CI children to
manipulate or use them in written tasks. The children were asked to write down
dictated words of variable orthographic consistency. Sound-to-spelling correspondences can be consistent and context-independent (such as /v/, /b/, /m/,
each of which has one possible phoneme-grapheme match) or inconsistent and
context-dependent (examples: /s/ can be spelled with s as in silence, c as in
cigarette and sc as in science, with no consistency according to orthographic
rules). Leybaert et al. (2009) reported that CS+ and NH children obtained
similar scores in both conditions, which were greater than those of CS- children. However, they did not control for the reading age of each child in their
analyses.
Taken together, the findings just cited suggest that CI children may be able to
use phonological and orthographic procedures in spelling, and that some variations
in the outcome of cochlear implantation may be explained by the mode of communication. In our study, we further investigated phonological and orthographic
processing in the spelling of CI children.
Language development varies greatly among profoundly deaf children, and
it is essential to consider the characteristics of each child when evaluating language skills. Indeed, characteristics such as age at onset of deafness, duration of
auditory deprivation, etiology of hearing loss, age at diagnosis, age at implantation, preimplant residual hearing, duration of implant use, and the presence of
other disabilities may affect language performance with an implant (Spencer,
2004; Svirsky, Chin, & Jester, 2007). CI children also vary in the amount of auditory information that they obtain from a cochlear implant and in the extent to
which they use the auditory information provided by the implant for speech and
language. Thus, we chose to use a case-study investigation to assess the spelling
skills of CI children.
METHOD
We assessed the spelling skills of 10 French CI children. They were compared to

NH children with the same reading level, using a case-study design where the performance of each CI child was compared to that of 10 control subjects.
Participants
Group with cochlear implants. Ten CI children (6 boys and 4 girls) were
recruited from 3 French services for the deaf. The children ranged in age from 9;5
to 12;3 years and from grades 2 to 5. Their ages at the time when they received
their multichannel cochlear implant ranged from 2;3 to 8;2 years. All had hearing parents. Six were congenitally deaf and four had progressive hearing loss since
birth. The children with progressive hearing loss had been fitted with an implant
as soon as they became profoundly deaf. Table 5.1 describes the characteristics
of each CI participant. The communication method reported in Table5.1 reflects
the method used at home. Before implantation, all but one of the children used
conventional hearing aids and LSF (French Sign Language). After implantation,
all the children used spoken language, and children using LSF before implantation
continued to use it. The communication method at home was bilingual for most
children. However, all children used only spoken language at school, since all were
enrolled in mainstream classes with NH children or in a spoken language classroom
in a school for the deaf (special education with spoken-language instruction). The
vocabulary scores presented in Table5.2 give information about the CI childrens
oral language skills.
Hearing control group. Each CI child was matched with 10 NH children on
reading age within a three-month range. Any performance advantage for the reading
age-matched control group compared to the CI children on the spelling tasks can
only be ascribed to spelling skills, since the groups were matched on word reading
level. Reading age was assessed with the Alouette test (Lefavrais, 1967), which determines reading age expressed in months, defined by text reading speed and accuracy
(see Sprenger-Charolles, Col, Bchennec, & Kipffer-Piquard, 2005, for details). As
indicated in Table5.2, the reading scores of the CI children and their NH controls
did not significantly differ (t < |1|). All the NH children also met the following criteria:(a)their reading age was within the normal range, with standard scores not more
than 1 SD above or below the mean on the Alouette test, (b)they were native French
speakers, and (c)they had no known history of language or reading impairments.
As indicated in Table5.2, the mean chronological age of the CI group was significantly higher than the RL group, t(19)=5.01, p < .001. The nonverbal reasoning
scores of both groups, tested using the progressive matrices (PM47; Raven, 1947),
were within the normal range and the PM47 scores of the CI children did not differ from those of the RL group, W2 < |1|, p >.20. Additionally, we used items from
the EVIP (chelle de Vocabulaire en images Peabody, Dunn, & Thriault, 1993)in
order to assess the vocabulary skills of CI children. The EVIP is a French version
of the British Picture Vocabulary Scale (BPVS; Dunn, Dunn, Whetton, & Burley,
1997)where the child is asked to choose and point to the one picture in a set of four
that corresponds to the word pronounced by the examiner. CI children had lower
vocabulary scores than NH children, t(19) = 5.02, p < .001; their oral language
skills were inferior to those of NH children who were two years younger.
Spell i ng Acquisiti on i n Fr en ch Ch i l dr en with Co ch l e a r I mpla nts [59]
Table5.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILDREN WITH COCHLEAR IMPLANTS (CI)

Children
with CI
Gender
CI.1
CI.2
F
F
CI.3
CI.4
Chronological Age Age at Diagnosis

(years; months)
(years; months)
Type of deafness Age at CI fitting

atdiagnosis
(years; months)
Length of CI use
(years; months)
Communication Educational
mode
Placement
9;5
9;6
0;6
1;8
Profound
Profound
2;3
2;7
7;2
6;9
Bilingual
Bilingual
Mainstream
Special Education
10
1;5
Profound
2;5
7;5
Bilingual
Mainstream
10;1
1;8
Severe
5;5
4;6
Spoken Language
Mainstream
CI.5
10;7
0;2
Profound
3;5
7;2
Bilingual
Mainstream
CI.6
10;8
Severe
8;2
2;7
Bilingual
Mainstream
CI.7
12
2;6
Severe
5;4
6;6
Bilingual
Mainstream
CI.8
12;1
1;3
Profound
3;5
8;6
Bilingual
Mainstream
CI.9
CI.10
M
M
12;1
12;3
2
1;5
Profound
Severe
4;2
6;3
7;9
6
Bilingual
Bilingual
Mainstream
Mainstream
Table5.2 CHRONOLOGICAL AGE, READING AGE, AND NON-VERBAL IQ

LEVEL OF COCHLEAR-IMPLANTED (CI) AND NORMAL HEARING (NH)
CHILDREN. FOR NH CHILDREN, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION
AREPRESENTED
Chronological
Age
Years;
months
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
CI
NH
CI
NH
CI
NH
CI
NH
CI
NH
9;5
***
10;4 (0;5)
9;6
7;5 (0;3)
10
9 (0;4)
10;1
9;7 (0;6)
10;7
7;5 (0;3)
CI
10;8
NH
10;4 (0;5)
CI
12
NH
CI
NH
CI
6;7 (0;6)
12;1
9 (0;4)
12;1
NH
9 (0;6)
CI
NH
12;3
9 (0;4)
***
***
>.20
***
*
***
***
***
***
Reading Age
Years;
months
10;1
>.20
10;3 (0;2)
7;4
7;2 (0;1)
8;6
8;6 (0;2)
9;7
9;7 (0;5)
7;2
7;2 (0;1)
10;1
10;3 (0;2)
6;6
6;6 (0;1)
8;5
8;6 (0;2)
9;4
9;2 (0;2)
>.20
>.20
>.20
>.20
>.20
>.20
>.20
>.20
8;6
>.20
8;6 (0;2)
PM47
Vocabulary
(EVIP)
Number
Percentile Percentage p
of correct
of correct
responses/36
responses
34
33.2 (2.5)
90
75
37.8
70.5 (2.9)
33
75
25 (4.9)
50
48.7 (3.6)
32
50
40.5
32.9 (2.3)
75
61.9 (4.5)
35
90
64.9
31.3 (2.3)
50
68.9 (4)
30
25
16.2
25 (4.9)
50
48.7 (3.6)
33
50
21.6
33.2 (2.5)
75
70.5 (2.9)
30
25
16.2
24.1 (6.4)
75
52.7 (4.2)
33
50
24.3
32.9 (2.3)
75
61.9 (4.5)
30
25
54.1
30 (4.8)
50
65.9 (4.1)
31
32.9 (2.3)
25
75
64.9
61.9 (4.5)
8.1
***
***
***
>.20
***
***
***
***
***
>.20
Note:***p < .001 and * p < .05
Measures
Word dictation test (from the BELEC: Mousty & Leybaert, 1999). The test is
made up of 40 items that are bisyllabic and trisyllabic words. Each word contains
a target grapheme. They were grouped into four conditions according to the complexities of the French spelling system. Note that two conditions assess the ability
to use the phonological procedure by measuring the childrens spelling skills with
words that follow simple PGC rules.
Sp e ll i ng Acquis it i on i n Fr ench Ch i l d r en with Co ch l e a r I mpla n ts [61]
(1) Simple graphemes: One-to-one PGC (1 sound:1 letter). The simple PGC
rule targets are simple consonants such as t and p (examples:t in matin (morning), p
in repas (meal)). These PGC rules are systematic and context-independent.
(2) Digraphs: phonemes represented by two-letter graphemes, that is,
one-to-two PGC (1 sound: 2 letters). These PGC rules are also systematic and
context-independent. The digraphs used were ch, on, and ou (ch in chambre (bedroom), on in cochon (pig), ou in velours (velvet)).
Two conditions assess the childrens ability to use the orthographic procedure to
spell words that do not follow PGC rules.
(3) Contextual effects: PGC rules are not systematic and depend instead on
context. For example, the phoneme /s/ can be spelled with an s (dominant rule)
(example:silence) or with a c or an sc (secondary rule) (example:ciel (sky) and scie
(saw)). Different graphemes may also represent the same phoneme. In the contextual effects condition, we exclusively assessed spelling skills for minority graphemes
(using c or sc for /s/), which are less frequently used for spelling /s/ in comparison
to s.
(4) Underivable refers to words containing a silent letter with no corresponding
phoneme. In these cases no rule or derivation from a morphological relationship
determines the appropriate grapheme [for example, silent letters such as s in jus
(juice) or the final t in apptit (appetite)].
In both of the latter two conditions (contextual effects and underivable), orthographic knowledge is required to correctly spell the word.
The children had to spell 10 items in each of the 4 conditions (simple graphemes
and digraphs, contextual effects and underivable).
Procedure
The children performed the dictation tasks individually. Testing took place in a
quiet room at the participants schools, ensuring good testing conditions. Each item
was dictated in a sentence that was pronounced twice. The children wrote their
responses in spaces indicated for this purpose on a sheet of paper. Items and conditions were randomized.
Data Analysis
Each CI child was compared to a control group composed of 10 NH children. The

NH group data act as a benchmark for the CI childrens performance, and we were
also able to explore individual differences between CI users.
Each CI childs score was compared to data from the corresponding NH group
using interquartile range (IQR) scores. IQR score is a measure of dispersion, which
gives information about the spread of the scores in a distribution. The interquartile
range is a more reliable indicator than parametric statistics because it eliminates
the outliers (the bottom 25% and top 25% of the distribution):it is equal to the
difference between the third and first quartile. If CI children scored below the fifth
percentile (which corresponds to 0.75*IQR below the first quartile), they were
categorized as outliers (Tukey, 1977). In this case, we considered their score to
be below the average performance of the NH controls and thus was outside the
population.
RESULTS
The scores of CI children on the spelling task relative to their reading age-matched
peers are reported in Table5.3 and Figure5.1; z-scores derived from BELEC normative data (for chronological age) are reported in Table5.3.
Simple PGC Rules and Phonological Procedure
Simple graphemes. Six CI children out of 10 spelled simple consonants as accurately

as their reading-level matched control group. Four out of 10 had a lower percentage
of correct responses for simple PGC rules than NH children.
Table5.3 SCORES (PERCENTAGE OF CORRECT RESPONSES) AND Z-SCORES

OF EACH CI CHILD (EXCEPT CI.7) FOR EACH CONDITION (SIMPLE
GRAPHEME, DIGRAPH, CONTEXTUAL EFFECT, UNDERIVABLE)
Subjects Grade
Simple Grapheme
Digraph
Contextual Effect
Underivable
Score
z-score
Score
z-score
Score
z-score
Score
z-score
2
3
2
2
81.82
100
1.20
0.49
70
100
0.71
0.78
33.33
88.89
0.96
1.33
16.67
66.67
0.79
1.55
45.45
4.59
50
1.69
44.45
0.50
16.67
0.79
63.64
2.90
60
1.20
55.56
0.04
66.67
1.55
10
0.49
100
0.78
66.67
0.41
90.91
0.67
100
0.60
55.56
2.07
66.67
0.29
72.73
0.36
100
0.60
88.89
0.05
66.67
0.29
6
9
4
4
81.82
100
2.73
1.70
80
100
1.11
0.60
66.67
66.67
1.36
1.36
33.33
66.67
1.85
0.29
100
50
0.77
Note:z-scores were derived through population scores from BELEC normative data.
Spell i ng Acquisiti on i n Fr ench Ch i l dr en with Co ch l e a r I mpla nts [63]
Digraphs. Most of the CI childrens scores were similar to those of the readinglevel controls (7 out of 10 children). Three CI children scored below the distribution of their reading-level controls.
Scores for simple PGC rules, including both simple graphemes and digraphs,
were similar to controls (within the distribution) for children CI.1, CI.2, CI.3, CI.4,
CI.7 and CI.10. The scores of children CI.5, CI.6 and CI.8 were lower than those of
their NH control groups in both categories. Child CI.9s score was lower than NH
controls for simple consonants but similar for digraphs (Figure5.1).
Complex PGC Rules and the Orthographic Procedure
Contextual effects. As indicated in Figure5.1, two CI children out of 10 were below

the NH distribution, seven obtained scores similar to NH children, and one child
obtained a better score than controls.
Underivable. For underivable PGC rules, the performance of eight CI children
out of 10 was similar to NH controls; one child scored better than controls, and one
child scored worse than NH controls.
In summary, the scores of children CI.2, CI.3, CI.4, CI.5, CI.7, CI.8, CI.9 and
CI.10 were similar to those of NH children for complex PGC rules; CI.6 obtained
lower scores than RL groups for both categories; and child CI.1 was scored lower
than NH controls for contextual effects items, but similarly to NH controls for underivable items (Figure5.1).
In general, the z-score analysis (Table 5.3) indicated similar difficulties than
IQR analysis. Scores for simple PGC rules, including both simple graphemes and
digraphs, were similar to controls (within the area below 5% and above 95% under a
normal density curve) for six CI children out of 10. Scores for complex PGC rules,
including both contextual effects and underivable conditions, were similar to controls for 8 children out of 10.
DISCUSSION
The present study investigated the spelling skills of French CI children and sought to
compare them to those of NH control children matched for reading level. CI children
gain auditory access to language after a period of absence of reliable auditory experience, and their spelling skills are thus a question of specific interest. CI childrens
delayed oral language development was demonstrated by their poor performance on a
test of vocabulary. CI children scored below RL controls who were two years younger.
Data from the two phonological conditions (simple graphemes and digraphs)
showed that six out of 10 CI children apply PGC rules with accuracy similar to
NH children matched for reading level. Interestingly, these results show that most
of the CI children in this study were able to develop spelling skills which require
100
Digraph
Percentage of Correct
Responses
Responses
Simple Grapheme
80
60
40
20
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Group Number
Group Number
Inderivable
Responses
Responses
Contextual Effect
100
80
60
40
20
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Group Number
Group Number
Figure 5.1.
Box plot for the four spelling conditions (simple grapheme, digraph, contextual effect and underivable). The delimitations of the box represent the lower quartile and the upper quartile from NH
data. The notches extend to Q1-0.75*IQR and Q3+0.75*IQR. The scores (percentage of correct
responses) of children with cochlear implants are represented by black points.
knowledge of PGC rules to a level comparable to that of reading age-matched children with normal hearing.
The CI children who exhibited a deficit in the use of phonological processing in
spelling presented difficulties with both simple graphemes and digraphs. Deaf children differ from each other in several important dimensions, notably chronological
age, age at diagnosis, type of deafness, age at CI fitting, length of CI use, communication mode, and placement education. These factors may undoubtedly influence
deaf childrens language development. CI.5, CI.8 and CI.9 are the children who had
selective difficulties in using phonological processing in spelling, all three presented
profound hearing loss from birth, and they were also the ones who received their
implants the latest among the children with profound deafness. These preliminary
results suggest that age at implantation and degree of hearing loss can significantly
affect the development of phonological processing. Because other factors could
modulate their effects, future studies are needed to explore this issue.
We also observed that the majority of CI children (8 out of 10)scored similarly
to or better than NH children matched for reading age in the two orthographic
Spell i ng Acquisiti on i n Fr en ch Ch i l dr en with Co ch l e a r I mpla nts [65]
conditions (contextual effects and underivable). Only child CI.6 scored lower
than NH controls in both conditions, and she is the only child who exhibited
difficulties with both phonological and orthographic processing in spelling. It is
important to consider the singular characteristics of this child in the evaluation
of her spelling skills; this child was also the latest implanted and the one who had
been using her implant for the shortest period out of all the CI children who participated in our study.
Overall, the CI children in this study seemed to be better at acquiring spelling
skills requiring orthographic knowledge than those requiring phonological processing. Although 9 CI children out of 10 succeeded in spelling words in the contextual
effects and underivable conditions, only 6 CI children out of 10 performed well in
the simple grapheme and digraph conditions. Our data suggest that CI childrens
spelling in French might have an important orthographic component and that they
can develop orthographic representations of words even if they have not developed fine-grained phonological processing. This result is congruent with findings
from previous studies performed with deaf children without CI devices (Burden &
Campbell, 1994; Leybaert, 2000; Sutcliffe, Dowker, & Campbell, 1999).
Nevertheless, these results differ somewhat from those of previous studies in
NH children, which have evidenced a bootstrapping mechanism whereby PGC
rules enable the development of orthographic knowledge. Among the 4 CI children with difficulties in phonological processing, only one spelled words in orthographic conditions with lesser accuracy than NH children. Thus, some CI children
showed good orthographic processing but poorer phonological processing. This
result, which does not support the bootstrapping connection between the development of phonological and orthographic processing, could be explained by the fact
that the CI children were older than NH children. The CI children could thus have
been sufficiently exposed to the orthographic patterns of words to encode them
accurately in spite of a deficit in phonological processing.
The present study, in line with that of Hayes etal. (2011), showed that most CI
children can use phonological information in spelling, but do not do so as successfully as hearing children. Strategies such as the use of cued speech, allowing CI children to compensate for their phonological difficulties, could help them to acquire
better spelling skills. The strong PGC rules established through cued speech allow
CI children to develop spelling skills similar to those of NH children matched for
grade level, whereas CI children who have never been exposed to cued speech score
lower on spelling tasks that depend on PGC rules and orthographic knowledge
(Leybaert etal., 2009). In keeping with the findings of Leybaert etal. (2009), a
recent study (Bouton, Serniclaes, Bertoncini, & Col, 2011)showed that deaf CI
children who had received intensive cued speech instruction developed phonemic
awareness and reading skills to the same level as NH children matched for chronological age. In order to provide more information to practitioners, future research
should extend these findings by investigating the influence of cued speech on CI
childrens ability to acquire phonological strategies for written tasks.
A comprehensive and accurate assessment of the spelling skills of CI children

remains an ambitious goal. Individual characteristics might influence the success of
spelling acquisition:notably, the age of implantation and the degree of hearing loss.
Aquantification of their role is essential for allowing a better support by speech
therapist. Finally, this study shows that CI children may learn to spell differently
than NH children. Examining the relative importance of phonological and orthographical processing in CI childrens spelling in greater depth is another interesting
goal for future research.
NOTES
1. Of interest in this analysis was the question of whether the errors of deaf children with
cochlear implants were phonologically plausibleindicating the use of phonological
knowledge during spelling. Spelling was considered plausible if each of the phonemes in
the word was spelled, in correct left-to-right sequence, using a letter or pair of letters that
aligns with the corresponding phoneme in any position in any of the words. For example,
gosst would be considered a plausible misspelling of ghost, but not xths or ghots.
2. Wilcoxon test.
REFERENCES
Alegria, J., & Mousty, P. (1994). On the development of lexical and non-lexical spelling procedures
of French-speaking, normal and disabled children. In G. Brown & N. Ellis (Eds), Handbook
of spelling. Theory, process, and intervention (pp. 211226). Chicester:John Wiley & Sons.
Alegria, J., & Mousty, P. (1996). The development of spelling procedures in french-speaking,
normal and disabled children:effects of frequency and lexicality. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 63, 312338.
Avan, P., Cazals, Y., Dauman, R., Denoyelle, F., & Hardelin, J. P. (2006). Dficits Auditifs,
Recherches mergentes et applications chez lenfant. Paris:Presses de lInserm.
Bouton, S., Serniclaes, W., & Col, P. (2012). Categorical perception of speech sounds in
French speaking children with cochlear implants, Journal of Speech, Language and
Hearing Research, 55, 139153.
Bouton, S., Serniclaes, W., Bertoncini, J., & Col, P. (2011). Reading and reading related skills
in children using cochlear implants:Prospects for the influence of Cued Speech. Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16, 458473.
Burden, V., & Campbell, R. (1994). The development of word-coding skills in the born deaf:An
experimental study of deaf school-leavers. British Journal of Developmental Psychology,
12, 331349.
Caravolas, M. (2004). Spelling development in alphabetic writing systems:Across-linguistic
perspective. European Psychologist, 9, 314.
Casalis, S. (2003). Le codage de linformation morphologique dans lcriture de mots chez les
apprentis scripteurs. Le langage et lHomme, 38, 95110.
Deacon, S. H., Conrad, N., & Pacton, S. (2008). A statistical learning perspective on childrens learning about graphotactic and morphological regularities in spelling. Canadian
Spell i ng Acquisiti on i n Fr ench Ch i l dr en with Co ch l e a r I mpla nts [67]
Dunn, L.M., Dunn, L.M., Whetton, C., & Burley, J. (1997). The British Picture Vocabulary
Scale, 2nd edn; available at: NFER Nelson, Unit 28, Bramble Road, Techno Trading
Centre, Swindon, SN2 8EZ, UK.
Dunn, L., & Theriault-Whalen, C. (1993). chelle de Vocabulaire en images Peabody, Dunn &
Thriault, PSYCAN, 147p.
Ehri, L. C. (1991). Learning to read and spell words. In L. Rieben & C.A, Perfetti
(Eds.), Learning to read: Basic research and its implications (pp. 5773). Hillsdale,
NJ:Erlbaum.
Ehri, L.C. (1997). Learning to read and learning to spell are one and the same, almost. In C.
Perfetti, L. Rieben, & M. Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell:Research, theory and practice (pp.
237269). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
Frith, U. (1986). A developmental framework for developmental dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia,
36, 6981.
Frost, R., Katz, L., & Bentin, S. (1987). Strategies for visual word recognition and orthographical depth:Amultilingual comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human
Perception and Performance, 13, 104115.
Geers, A.E. (2003). Predictors of reading skill development in children with early cochlear
implantation. Ear and Hearing, 24, 5968.
Geers, A., Brenner, C., & Davidson, L. (2003). Factors associated with development of speech
perception skills in children implanted by age five. Ear and Hearing, 24, 2435.
Geers, A.E., Tobey, E., Moog, J.S., & Brenner, C. (2008). Long-term outcomes of cochlear
implantation in the preschool years:From elementary grades to high school. International
Journal of Audiology, 47, S21S30.
Hayes, H., Kessler, B., & Treiman, R. (2011). Spelling of deaf children who use cochlear
implants. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 522539.
Lefavrais, P. (1967). Test de lAlouette:Manuel [Alouette:Astandardized reading test]. Paris:Les
Editions du Centre de Psychologie Applique.
Leybaert, J. (2000). Phonology acquired through the eyes and spelling in deaf children. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 75, 291318.
Leybaert, J., Bravard, S., Sudre, S., & Cochard, N. (2009). La adquisicion de la lectura y la orthographia en ninos sordos con implante coclear:Efectos de la Palabra Complementada
[Reading and spelling acquisition in deaf children with a cochlear implant]. In M.
Carillo & A.B. Dominguez (Eds.), Lineas actuales en el estudio de la lengua escrita y sus
dificultades: dislexia & sordera. Libro de lecturas en honor de Jsus Alegria (pp. 2950).
Malaga:Aljibe.
Leybaert, J., & Content A. (1995). Reading and Spelling Acquisition in Two Different Teaching
Methods:a Test of the Independence Hypothesis. Reading and Writing, 7, 6588.
Medina, V., & Serniclaes, W. (2009). Consecuencias de la categorizacinfonolgica sobre la
lecturasilenciosa de niossordos con implante coclear. Revista de Logopedia, Foniatra y
Audiologa, 29, 186194.
Morton, J. (1989). An information-processing account of reading acquisition. In A.M.
Galaburda (Ed.), From reading to neurons. Cambridge, MA:Bradford Book, MIT Press.
Mousty, P., & Leybaert, J. (1999). Evaluation des habilets de lecture et dorthographe au
moyen de la BELEC:Donnes longitudinales auprs denfants francophones tests en
2me et 4me annes. Revue Europenne de Psychologie Applique, 49, 325342.
Pacton, S., Fayol, M., & Perruchet, P. (2005). Childrens implicit learning of Graphotactic and
Morphological regularities. Child development, 76, 324339.
Perfetti, C.A. (1991). Representations and awareness in the acquisition of reading competence.
In L. Rieben & C. A.Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read:Basic research and its implications
(pp. 3344). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Raven, J. (1947). Coloured progressive matrices. Oxford, England: Oxford Psychologists

Press.
Seymour, P.H., Aro, M., & Erskine, J.M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European
orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143174.
Share, D. L. (1999). Phonological recoding and orthographic learning: a direct test of the
self-teaching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72, 95129.
Spencer, P.E. (2004). Individual differences in language performance after cochlear implantation at one to three years of age: Child, family, and linguistic factors. Journal of Deaf
Studies and Deaf Education, 9, 395412.
Sprenger-Charolles, L., Col, P., Bchennec, D., & Kipffer-Piquard, A. (2005). Lecture et
comptences relies:Donnes normatives pour la fin de la 1re, 2nde, 3me et 4me
anne du primaire issues dune nouvelle batterie de tests, EVALEC. EuropeanReview of
AppliedPsychology/Revue Europenne de Psychologie Applique, 55, 157186.
Sprenger-Charolles, L., Siegel, L.S., Bchennec, D., & Serniclaes, W. (2003). Development
of phonological and orthographic processing in reading aloud, in silent reading: A four-year longitudinal study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 84,
194217.
Sutcliffe, A., Dowker, A., & Campbell, R. (1999). Deaf childrens spelling:Does it show sensitivity to phonology? Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 4, 111123.
Svirsky, M.A., Chin, S.B., & Jester, A. (2007). The effects of age at implantation on speech intelligibility in pediatric cochlear implant users:Clinical outcomes and sensitive periods,
Audiological Medicine, 5, 293306. doi:10.1080/16513860701727847.
Treiman, R. (1993). Beginning to spell:Astudy of first-grade children. NewYork, NY:Oxford
University Press.
Tukey, J.W. (1977). Exploratory Data Analysis, Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley,
Tye-Murray, N., Spencer, L., & Gilbert-Bedia, E. (1995). Relationships between speech production and speech perception skills in young cochlear-implant users. The Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 98, 24542460.
Vronis, J. (1988). From sound to spelling in French:Simulation on a computer. Cahiers de
Psychologie Cognitive, 8, 315334.
Ziegler, J. C., Jacobs, A. M., & Stone, G. O. (1996). Statistical analysis of the bidirectional
inconsistency of spelling and sound in French. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments,
& Computers, 28, 504515.
Spelli ng Acquisition i n Fr ench Ch i ldr en with Co ch le a r I mpla nts [69]
CHAPTER6
Spelling Abilities in Hebrew-Speaking

RONIT LEVIE, DORIT R AVID, TAL FREUD, AND TOVA MOST
SPELLING HEBREW MORPHOLOGY
One view of spelling in alphabetical orthographies is that it represents phonology by

orthographic units (Goswami, 2002). Words such as English step illustrate a regular
and transparent phoneme-grapheme relationship that can be easily inferred from the
application of a broad generalization. However, many English words such as daughter illustrate an irregular, less consistent and transparent, sometimes idiosyncratic
relationship between phonology and orthography, requiring some rote learning.
Amajor source of irregular spelling comes from homophonywhere phonological
segments (from phoneme to [sub]syllables to words) can be written by two (or more)
different graphemes. An example of word homophony would be English their/there
or the Dutch diphthong /ey/ which is spelled either as -ei- or -ij-. Opacity in the
phonology-orthography link is a hindrance to correct spelling. In cross-linguistic perspective, the rate of spelling acquisition in grade school is faster in transparent orthographies, such as Czech (Caravolas, 2004), German (Wimmer & Landerl, 1997),
Greek (Nikolopoulos, Goulandis, Hulme, & Snowling, 2006), Indonesian (Winskel
& Widjaja, 2007), or Spanish (Defior & Serrano, 2005). The rate of spelling acquisition is slower in less transparent orthographies such as English (Holmes & Malone,
2004; Treiman & Kessler, 2005), Finnish ( Jrvikivi, Bertram, & Niemi, 2006),
French (Bosse, Valdois, & Tainturier, 2003)or (nonvoweled) Arabic (Abu-Rabia &
Taha, 2006). The current chapter examines spelling and morphology skills in deaf
children learning to spell in Hebrew, whose orthography is highly homophonous.
Research has shown that spelling knowledge requires finer-grained mappings than the phonology-orthography interface (Holmes & Babauta, 2005).
For example, children learning deep orthographies such as those of English and
French make implicit use of orthographic regularities (Kemp & Bryant, 2003;
Pacton, Perruchet, Fayol, & Cleeremans, 2001). Considering spelling patterns
in word-specific sites (i.e., positions) can help even beginning English spellers
detect underlying statistical consistencies and predict spelling patterns with some
accuracy (Kessler & Treiman, 2003). A major factor in affecting opaque phonology-orthography relations is the ability to detect morphological units in spelling
development. For example, the English adjective suffix -ic has three different phonetic values in electric, electricity, and electrician /k/ in the adjective, /s/ in the
nominal derived from the adjective preceding the abstract suffix -ity, and /sh/ in
the agent noun derived from the adjective preceding the agent suffix -ian. All three
phonological variations are spelled uniformly by the letter sequence -ic- signifying the adjective suffix. Such morphological knowledge plays a key role in adults
spelling abilities (Sandra, 2007; Templeton & Morris, 2000). Morphologically
motivated orthographic representations can be assumed to exist in the linguistic
cognition of mature spellers, and they can serve to facilitate spelling in cases of
disrupted phoneme-to-grapheme mapping. By now, the recruitment of morphological knowledge is recognized to feature at various phases of the acquisition of
spelling in a range of languages such as English (Deacon & Dhooge, 2010; Walker
& Hauerwas, 2006), Danish ( Jull, 2005), Dutch (Rispens, McBride-Chang,
& Reitsma, 2008), Finnish (Aro, 2005), French (Pacton & Fayol, 2003), Greek
(Chliounaki & Bryant, 2002), Korean (Kim, 2010), Portuguese (Rosa & Nunes,
2008), Spanish (Defior, Alegra, Titos, & Martos, 2008)and, of course, Hebrew
(Ravid, 2005, 2011).
A prominent feature that is known to affect spelling acquisition and processing
is language typology. This term refers to the set of frequent and salient properties
and types of structures and devices that factor most highly in encoding linguistic
information in a specific language (Croft, 1990; Cysouw, 2005). Language typology draws the attention of learners from early on and shapes the way they think
about their spoken and written language (Berman, 1986; Olson, 1994; Slobin,
2001). Morphlogy has been shown to be the most prominent typological feature in
Hebrew (Ravid, 2012), and is critical in gaining command of spelling knowledge in
Hebrew, a language with a rich morphology (Ravid, 2003).
The Hebrew orthography is alphabetical, with the typical grapho-phonemic
relationship holding between phonology and written graphemes. For example,
stands for G, and stands for N. It is written from right to left. The Hebrew
alphabet has 22 letters, of which 18 designate consonants alone, whereas the other
fourAHWY have a double function of standing for both consonants and
vowels. The universally used so-called nonvoweled orthographic version relies
on the 22 letters alone, with consequent under-representation of vowels, which
is why it is considered deep or opaque. Asecond, transparent, orthographic version of Hebrew fully represents the phonological values of both consonants and
vowels. However, it is mainly used for beginner reading instruction, and in special
Sp e ll i n g i n H e b r e w - Sp e a k i n g C h i l d r e n w i t h H e a r i n g L o s s [ 7 1 ]
communicative contexts requiring precise enunciation of Hebrew words, such as

poetry and Bible reading.
Spelling errors in Hebrew mainly derive from neutralized phonological distinctions (or mergers) of historically distinct phonemes that have rendered Modern
Hebrew phonology very different from its classical counterparts. Several sets of classical consonants have merged, resulting in loss of historical phonological distinctions,
whereas the Hebrew orthography continues to mark these distinctions by separate
letters (Bolozky, 1997; Ravid, 2005, 2012). When phonological distinctions are no
longer directly encoded in the orthography, homophony is entailed: a single phoneme can be spelled by more than one grapheme. For example, historically emphatic
// and nonemphatic /t/ are now merged into a single unmarked phonemethe
homophonous voiceless alveo-dental stop /t/. These historical phonological distinctions are now expressed, respectively, in the letters and T . Homophony of /t/ is
thus one example of a source of spelling errors in Hebrew.
The reflection of ancient and defunct phonological distinctions in the form of
current homophony and distinct graphemes such as /t/ just described is the main
source of spelling errors in Modern Hebrew. Yet Hebrew morphology, its most
distinct typological property, is a substantial aid in overcoming homophony and
avoiding spelling errors based on their morphological roles. The written Hebrew
word consists of an obligatory lexical corea root or a stemwith derivational,
inflectional and morpho-syntactic affixes flanking it at both sides in systematic
order, that is, an envelope of affix letters. Root and affix letters not only have different morphological roles and orthographic sites in the written Hebrew word, they
differently affect the pace of spelling acquisition (Ravid, 2006). In the case of the
22 root letters, homophony, coupled with high type and low token frequency, poses
serious challenges to spelling acquisition. The only way to learn to spell homophonous root letters is frequent exposure to written words, which takes a long time and
requires a robust spoken and written lexicon (Gillis & Ravid, 2006; Ravid, 2005).
However, in the case of the 11 homophonous affix letters with their high token frequency, overcoming homophony is much easier:In most of the cases, only one of
the homophonous pair belongs to the set of affix letters. For example, only the spelling of T can be selected for /t/ as an affix letter, as the other option of serves
only as a root letter. Therefore, the correct spelling of homophonous affix letters is
earlier and more robust than spelling the same homophonous segment in the role
of a root letter (Ravid, 2012; Ravid & Bar-On, 2005).
Hebrew-speaking children are able from early on to detect and make use of morphological cues such as the role of root versus affix letters. Given the morphological
underpinnings of Hebrew spelling, it is clear that morphology and orthography are
irrevocably linked in Hebrew literacy acquisition in mutual bootstrapping (Ravid,
2012). This is not the result of explicit teaching, as spelling is not taught systematically in Israel. If at all, children may be tested sporadically on what teachers perceive as hard words, but there is no systematic morphology-based instruction
of Hebrew spelling (Ravid & Gillis, 2002). The majority (85%) of children with
hearing loss in Israel attend regular schools (either in dedicated classes or in regular
classes) and are thus exposed to the spoken language and to the regular curricula.
SPELLING IN DEAF CHILDREN AND CHILDREN WITH

HEARING LOSS
Morphological representations, as well as orthographic representations, interface with phonology. As phonological representations are coarser grained and
less robust in deaf readers (Friesen & Joanisse, 2012), the question raised in the
current study is whether children with hearing loss would show the same learning patterns of their hearing peers regarding spelling and morphological skills. Past
research has shown that deaf adult students are able to detect morphological structure in complex English words, though this ability is not as well developed as in
hearing peers (Gaustad & Kelly, 2004). Likewise, new research about Dutch has
found that deaf children have a smaller and less-robust lexicon and perform less
well on morphological analysis (Coppens, Tellings, Verhoeven, & Schreuder, 2011;
Van Hoogmoed, Verhoeven, Schreuder, & Knoors, 2011). The present exploratory
study investigated whether Hebrew-speaking children with hearing loss would rely
on morphology in spelling like their hearing peers. The richness and salience of
Hebrew morphology, coupled with its frequent and clear expression in Hebrew
orthography (Ravid, 2012), would generate the hypothesis that even children with
hearing loss would be able to find stable cues in the morpho-orthography interface
and use them to their own advantage in learning to spell correctly. Such a prediction
is supported by studies such as Dromi, Leonard, & Shteiman (1993), indicating
that language-impaired children growing up in a morphology-rich language are better equipped to grasp the word structure; and also by studies such as Most, Levin
& Sarsour (2008), demonstrating that full and precise orthographic representation
assists Arabic-speaking children with hearing loss in constructing phonological
representations. We thus designed the current study, which examined spelling and
morphology skills in Hebrew-speaking children and adolescents with hearing loss
(HL henceforth) compared with established abilities of hearing peers.
METHOD
Participants
This chapter is partially based on the MA thesis written by the third author (Tal
Freud), and it compares the performance of a group of children with HL with a
population of hearing children of a similar age range192 participants in Gillis &
Ravid (2006) and Ravid (2002). The hearing students were of the same socioeconomic status as the participants with HL of the current study, and, like them, were
monolingual Hebrew speakers.
The group of participants with HL consisted of 21 children whose schooling

levels ranged from first to ninth grade. All the children attended regular schools
with hearing children in the south of Israel. Recruiting each participant to the study
involved getting the permission of parents via the cooperation of school principals.
Parents who consented to their childs participation provided us with information
regarding the childs hearing loss and demographic background. All the children
had bilateral preverbal sensorineural hearing loss. The hearing loss of the children
ranged from moderate to severe (45 dB to 90 dB pure tone average of 500 Hz, 1000
Hz and 2000 Hz in the better ear). All the children had hearing aids and they used
spoken language as their mode of communication. They had no difficulties other
than the hearing loss. All the children had normal hearing parents and their families
had similar socioeconomic status (mid-high). In addition to the information that
was obtained from the parents, we relied on reports from school principals as well
as assessments from SHEMA, which is an Israeli nonprofit association serving children aged 7-18years, with hearing loss. The 21 participants were grouped into four
blocks, as follows:Block Iwith grades 1& 2 (4 children), Block II with grades 3&
4 (4 children), Block III with grades 5& 6 (6 children), and Block IV with grades
7, 8, and 9 (7 children). The distribution participants by age, grade, and block is
presented in Table6.1.
The current chapter focuses on the spelling skills of our participants. Data were
also collected on their verbal skills, specifically, their knowledge of Hebrew grammatical and morphological structures, but these data will not be presented here.
The Spelling Task
The Hebrew Spelling Task (HST henceforth) initially designed for the Hebrew
part of the Gillis & Ravid (2006) cross-linguistic study of spelling development in
Hebrew- and Dutch-speaking children. It was a dictation task of 32 words containing homophonous letters, which consisted of four categories:
Category (1)morphological and morphophonological cues: 8 homophonous items containing the same segment /v/ (neutralized /w/ and /b/) that may
be spelled either by W or B . All items were both morphologically cued (that
is, root versus affix letters) and morphophonologically cued (stop/spirant alternation); for example, in the form va-ir and-city, /v/ designates the coordinator and
spelled W . In u-vahir "and-bright, /v/ is a root letter (cf. b-h-r bright) spelled B .
Category (2)morphophonological cues only: 8 homophonous items in the
same morphological pattern, containing a surface /x/ (neutralization /h/ or spirantized /k/) as a root letter. The morphophonological clue is the low vowel associated
with /x/ deriving from /h/, spelled as and not as . This is how the different spellings of the final /x/ in drex road and krax ice are recoverable.
Category (3)morphological cues only (root versus affix letters): 8 homophonous items containing the segment /t/ spelled as either -t-T or -- with a
Table6.1 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE 21 PARTICIPANTS WITH HEARING LOSS

Participant
Age during Testing
Blocks and Grades
1
2
7;3
8;1
I - Grades 1& 2
I - Grades 1& 2
8;4
I - Grades 1& 2
8;7
I - Grades 1& 2
9;6
II - Grades 3& 4
9;8
II - Grades 3& 4
9;5
II - Grades 3& 4
10;4
II - Grades 3& 4
11;7
III - Grades 5& 6
10
11;2
III - Grades 5& 6
11
12;6
III - Grades 5& 6
12
12;3
III - Grades 5& 6
13
12;0
III - Grades 5& 6
14
12;8
III - Grades 5& 6
15
13;1
IV - Grades 7, 8& 9
16
14;2
IV - Grades 7, 8& 9
17
14;5
IV - Grades 7, 8& 9
18
14;4
IV - Grades 7, 8& 9
19
14;4
IV - Grades 7, 8& 9
20
21
14;11
15;5
IV - Grades 7, 8& 9
IV - Grades 7, 8& 9
distinct morphological functions: /t/ standing for a function letter is always spelled
, whereas /t/ standing for a root letter may be spelled as either or . For example, in kashot hard-boiled,pl, fem, -ot is a feminine plural suffix, and is, therefore,
spelled as , whereas mashot oar is spelled with a final root letter ( root -w- sail).
Category (4)no cues: 8 homophonous items with no cues at all (phonological, morphological or morphophonological). Test items were pairs of words containing the vowel i, which may or may not be spelled by Y , such as in min from
spelled MN vs. min gender spelled MYN .
Procedure
One of the investigators (third author) met with each child individually in a quiet
room. Participants received a response sheet on which the spelling test was printed,
and they were asked to spell the target words, presented in a sentential context to
ensure clear and nonambiguous understanding. Each carrier sentence contained
one target word. The target word preceded the sentence and followed it, as well as
being contained in it, as in the following example:kashot hard-boiled, pl, fem,
axalti hayom beytsim kashot I ate today hard-boiled eggs. Please write kashot. The
investigator told the child You are going to hear a sentence with a word you need to
write down. Listen to the sentence and write down the word. The sentence was read
aloud by the investigator four times, and at the end of the reading the child was
asked to write down the target word (rather than the full sentence).
RESULTS
The HST task was taken from Gillis and Ravid (2006) and Ravid (2002), and its
results were compared with the 192 hearing children of these studies. The only difference in age range was the fact that the hearing participants stopped at grade 6.
We first present the overall results of the HST, showing that spelling success in both
groups of hearing children and children with HL increases with age and schooling
level and that spelling performance seems to develop at the same pace in the group
of children with HL as in the hearing peers (Table 6.2).
Following this general comparison, we proceeded to examine spelling abilities
across the four categories of the HST. Figures 6.1 (hearing children) and 6.2 (children with HL) below present correct spelling on the four categories of the HST,
showing that for both groups, the no-cues category is the most difficult, whereas
the categories with morphological and morphophonological cues promote better
performance in both groups of children.
We now proceed to examine knowledge of specific morpho-orthographic patterns in the HST categories.
Category 1 (morphological and morphophonological cues): and as root letters. This category focused on letters and standing for the homophonous
Table6.2 PERCENTAGE (%)OF CORRECT SPELLINGS ON HST IN HEARING
CHILDREN (RAVID, 2002)AND IN CHILDREN WITH HEARING LOSS
(CURRENT STUDY)
Ravid (2002)
Hearing participants
Current Study
Participants with moderate to severe hearing loss
G1
G2
61.0
68.0
G1-G2
65.2
G3
81.0
G3-G4
84.0
G4
82.0
G5
92.0
G5-G6
91.7
93.0
---------
G7-8-9
92.4
G6
G7-8-9
100%
90%
80%
70%
G1
60%
G2
G3
50%
G4
40%
G5
30%
G6
20%
10%
0%
Morpho+Morpho
phon
Morphophon
Morpho
No cues
Figure6.1.
Correct Spelling on the HST by Hearing Children (Ravid, 2002, in percentages).
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
G1-2
G3-4
G5-6
G7-8-9
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Morpho+Morpho
phon
Morphophon
Morpho
No cues
Figure6.2.
Correct spelling on the HST by participants with hearing loss (current study, in percentages).
segment /v/. The morphological cue in the category consisted of the fact that
both letters can function as either root or affix letters (Ravid, 2012), whereas the
morphophonological cue was the fact that may stand for either /b/ or /v/ based
on the morphological environment (Gillis & Ravid, 2006). In the current context
we compared correct spelling of and as root letters in the two populations, as
shown in Table6.3. Success rates seem parallel in the two groups and patterns of
Table6.3 PERCENTAGE (%)OF CORRECT SPELLINGS OF (1) AND AS

ROOT LETTERS; AND (2) AND AS ROOT LETTERS IN HEARING CHILDREN
(RAVID, 2002)AND IN CHILDREN WITH HEARING LOSS (CURRENT STUDY)
Ravid (2002)
Current Study
G1
63.5
62.0
G2
71.0
66.5
G3
95.0
76.5
G4
92.0
81.5
G5
99
88.5
G6
100
94.0
G7-8-9
--------
G1
72.7
36.0
G2
85.0
38.0
G3
88.7
70.0
G4
90.7
71.0
G5
93.5
89.0
G6
G7-8-9
96.5
89.0
---------
G1-G2
87.5
50.0
G3-G4
100
87.5
G5-G6
100
91.5
G7-8-9
100
100
G1-G2
75.0
43.8
G3-G4
81.25
81.3
G5-G6
91.5
95.8
G7-8-9
96.3
96.3
acquisition seem also similar. In both groups, is probably perceived earlier and
better as the representative of /v/ as a root letter. This is because consistently
and across the board represents /v/, whereas the main phonological role of is
representing the stop /b/, with /v/ being a marked alternative occurring in highly
restricted morphophonological environments. Even more specifically, the items
testing and as root letters in the HST focused on initial root position, which
restricts the /v/ pronunciation even more.
Category 2 (morphophonological cues): and as root letters. This category
focused on letters and standing for the homophonous segment /x/. The morphophonological cue in the category consisted of the fact that attracts vowel lowering, whereas alternates between designating a stop /k/ or a fricative /x/ (Gillis
& Ravid, 2006; Ravid, 2012). There was no morphological cue in this category, as
both letters designated only root letters. Table 6.3 shows correct spelling of and
as root letters in the two groups. Both groups show increase for the two letters with
age and schooling, and in both of them has higher scores from the beginning.
This category also shows some difference among the two groups, with the hearing
children having a shallower learning curve for , whereas the participants with HL
of the current study reaching the same score for both letters by grades 34. Here we
may posit some advantage to the children with hearing loss, given that they are less
Table6.4 PERCENTAGE (%)OF CORRECT SPELLINGS OF (1) AND AS

ROOT LETTERS; AND (2)ABSENT AND PRESENT IN HEARING CHILDREN
(RAVID, 2002)AND IN CHILDREN WITH HEARING LOSS (CURRENT STUDY)
Ravid (2002)
Current Study
G1
84.0
10.5
G2
89.5
29.0
G3
85.0
69.0
G4
83.0
59.5
G5
83.5
90.5
G6
77.0
88.5
G7-8-9
---------
87.5
37.5
G3-G4
87.5
37.5
G5-G6
91.5
G7-8-9
absent
present
G1
21.2
72.0
G2
20.2
85.5
G3
40.0
92.0
G4
59.5
88.2
G5
78.5
97.0
G6
G7-8-9
84.2
95.2
---------
G1-G2
100
85.0
85.0
absent
present
G1-G2
62.5
68.7
G3-G4
81.25
81.2
G5-G6
91.5
91.5
G7-8-9
85.0
85.7
affected by the phonological identity between the two letters and thus rely more
on the morpho-orthographic representations with less interference by phonology.
Category 3 (morphological cues): and as root letters. This category focused
on letters and standing for the homophonous segment /t/. The morphological cue in the category consisted of the fact that only can function as either
root or affix letter, while is always a root letter (Ravid, 2012). There was no
morphophonological cue in this category, since none of the letters in Modern
Hebrew stand for conditioned alternations of stops and spirants (Gillis & Ravid,
2006). Again a similar pattern emerges in this study across the two groups. In the
case of , the most frequent affix letter in Hebrew, there is practically no learning going on in either group (see Table 6.4). The other /t/ alternant, , shows
very low scores in the lower grades, and more so in the participants with HI, with
dramatic improvement in the higher grades. What seems to be taking place across
the board is standing as a single alternant for /t/, given its ubiquitousness and
double role as an affix and root letter, with the gradual revision of this perception
in the higher grades as comes to occupy its proper place in the map of Hebrew
phono-morpho-orthography.
Category 4 (no cues):insertion of to signify the vowel i. The last category involved
no morphological cues, and consisted of items in which the vowel letter had to
Table6.5 PERCENTAGE (%)OF CORRECT SPELLINGS FOR HOMOPHONOUS

AFFIX AND ROOT LETTERS IN HEARING CHILDREN (RAVID, 2002)AND IN
CHILDREN WITH HEARING LOSS (CURRENT STUDY)
Ravid (2002)
Current Study
Affix letters Root letters
Affix letters
Root letters
G1
G2
87.5
94.0
54.7
64.13
G1-G2
87.5
65.63
G3
97.7
81.2
G3-G4
96.88
81.25
G4
94.88
78.88
G5
97.38
90.38
G5-G6
93.75
89.5
G6
G7-8-9
99.38
89.88
G7-8-9
96.25
92.88
---------
be inserted or else withheld following complex morphophonological and orthographic conditions. As detailed in Ravid (2012) and tested in Gillis and Ravid
(2006) and Ravid (2002), these conditions are extremely opaque so that Hebrew
speakers have to rely on rote memory for each word with some generalizations,
which are not entirely robust. Interestingly, participants with HL do better on
words without , which might be the result of their early exposure to the written
language modality (see Table6.4).
Root vs. affix letters. Afinal comparison is on the spelling of homophonous root
and affix letters. According to the analyses in previous research on hearing populations, homophonous affix letters are easier to spell than root letters since they have
clear morphological roles associated with only one of the orthographic variants, for
example, only has affix functions, whereas serves only as a root letter. Moreover,
affix letters constitute a small set with low type frequency and extremely high token
frequency, making them easy to learn. Indeed, as Table6.5 shows, both groups have
very similar results, with affix letters clearly taking precedence over root letters, as
predicted.
CONCLUSION
The comparison of correct spelling on the HST by hearing children and children
with hearing loss yielded rather surprising results:These preliminary results show
that on all parts of the task children with HL did just as well as hearing children of
comparable ages, whereas in a few cases the children with HL had slightly better
scores. Moreover, in this study we found apparently the same patterns of spelling
acquisition for both groups at the general and at specific levels of analysis. Thus,
our results suggest that the rich and complex morpho-orthographic construction
of Hebrew spelling might impact children with HL as much as it does hearing children, with the additional factor that for children with HL phonological identity
plays a slightly less significant role in spelling of homophonous letters. Like Dromi
etal. (1993), we found that exposure to the extremely rich morphology of Hebrew
is a key factor in overcoming a disability that might hinder children learning less
morphologically rich languages.
DISCUSSION
Like previous studies focusing on the morphological richness of Hebrew in comparison with other languages (e.g., Dromi et al., 1993; Ravid et al., 2008), and specifically on the importance of morphology in spelling Hebrew (Gillis & Ravid, 2006),
we have found that rich morphological input may support spelling knowledge even
in children with hearing loss. This is because spelling constitutes part of a linguistic
network, implying a systematic relationship with structural domainsphonology
and morpho-phonologyon the one hand, and with meaning and functionlexicon, morpho-syntax, derivational and inflectional morphologyon the other.
At the beginning of this chapter, we made the hypothesis that children with HL
might benefit from the rich and robust morpho-orthographic information provided
by the structure of written Hebrew words despite their poor phonological abilities.
This hypothesis seems to be supported by the results of this study. Our findings
suggest that Hebrew-speaking children with hearing loss may not be impeded by
homophony and rely on morphological cues just as much as their hearing peers.
Some of the results of this study show, however, that this knowledge may arrive
somewhat later in the children with hearing loss (see Table6.4), suggesting that
they might need some more time to organize their spelling knowledge in view of
written morpho-orthographic constructs, whereas such links may be forged much
earlier in hearing children.
The fact that the small group of older HL participants did particularly poorly
(see Table6.4) may be attributed to the fact that several of them reported reluctance in using their hearing aids at all times and may have consequently lost
verbal information, unlike the younger groups. As teenagers they might have
regarded the hearing aid as stigmatized, as reported in other studies (Arnold &
MacKenzie, 1998; Blood, 1997; Kent & Smith, 2006). Another possible explanation might be the fact that currently deaf children are diagnosed and rehabilitated earlier and better than in the previous decade and, therefore, younger
deaf children might have an easier time responding to verbal (including spelling) tasks. Our clinical recommendations not only focus on the importance of
early diagnosis and rehabilitation of hearing loss, but also on the importance of
hearing aids in rehabilitation across the school years, and finally on intensive
and extensive work on spoken and written tasks in the older age groups with
hearing loss.
Given the limitations of this study, we would like to see in the future a systematic replication of the current spelling task in much larger groups of deaf participants
across grade school and junior high school, which would provide us with meaningful
statistical information. Also, the current study examined spelling skills in participants
with moderate to severe hearing loss, and thus its results cannot currently be extended
to children with more severe hearing loss who do not attend regular schools, to children rehabilitated by simultaneous language, or to children with cochlear implant
devices implanted at different ages. Nevertheless, this exploratory study shows that
knowledge of morphology may support spelling in Hebrew in children with hearing
loss, indicating potential avenues for future intervention. Thus, if replicated with children with profound hearing loss, highlighting the relationship between morphology
and spelling would be of great interest in helping HL children learn to spell and read.
REFERENCES
Abu-Rabia, S., & Taha, H. (2006). Phonological errors predominate in Arabic spelling across
grades 19. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35, 167188.
Arnold, P., & MacKenzie, I. (1998). Rejection of hearing aids: A critical review. Journal of
Audiological Medicine, 7, 173199.
Aro, M. (2005). Learning to read:the effect of orthography. In R. M.Joshi & P. G.Aaron (Eds.),
Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 531550). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
Berman, R. (1986). The acquisition of morphology/syntax:Acrosslinguistic perspective. In P.
Fletcher & M. Garman (Eds.), Language acquisition (2nd ed., pp. 429477). Cambridge,
Blood, I.M. (1997). The hearing aid effect:Challenges for counseling. Journal of Rehabilitation,
63, 5963.
Bolozky, S. (1997). Israeli Hebrew phonology. In A. S.Kaye & P. T.Daniels (Eds.) Phonologies
of Asia and Africa (pp. 287311). Winona Lake, Indiana:Eisenbrauns.
Bosse, M.L., Valdois, S., & Tainturier, M.J. (2003). Analogy without priming in early spelling
development. Reading and Writing, 16, 693716.
Caravolas, M. (2004). Spelling development in alphabetic writing systems:Across-linguistic
perspective. European Psychologist, 9(1), 314.
Chliounaki, K., & Bryant, P. (2002). Construction and learning to spell. Cognitive Development,
17, 14891499.
Coppens, K.M., Tellings, A., Verhoeven, L., & Schreuder, R. (2011). Depth of reading vocabulary in hearing and hearing-impaired children. Reading & Writing, 24, 463477.
Croft, W. (1990). Typology and universals. Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.
Cysouw, M. (2005). Quantitative methods in typology. In G. Altmann, R. Khler, & R.
Piotrowski (Eds.), Quantitative linguistics: An international handbook (pp. 554578).
Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Deacon, H.S., & Dhooge, S. (2010). Developmental stability and changes in the impact of root
consistency on childrens spelling. Reading and Writing, 23, 10551069.
Defior, S., & Serrano, F. (2005). The initial development of spelling in Spanish:From global to
analytical. Reading and Writing, 18, 8198.
Defior, S., Alegra, J., Titos, R., & Martos, F. (2008). Using morphology when spelling in a
shallow orthographic system:the case of Spanish. Cognitive Development, 23, 204215.
Dromi, E., Leonard, L. B., & Shteiman, M. (1993). The grammatical morphology of
Hebrew-speaking children with specific language impairment:some competing hypotheses. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 760771.
Friesen, D.C., & Joanisse, M.F. (2012). Homophone effects in deaf readers:Evidence from
lexical decision. Reading and Writing, 25, 375388.
Gaustad, M.J., & Kelly, R.R. (2004). The relationship between reading achievement and morphological word analysis in deaf and hearing students matched for reading level. Journal
of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9, 269285.
Gillis, S., & Ravid, D. (2006). Typological effects on spelling development:a crosslinguistic
study of Hebrew and Dutch. Journal of Child Language, 33, 621659.
Goswami, U. (2002). Phonology, reading development and dyslexia: A cross-linguistic perspective. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 123.
Holmes, V.M., & Babauta, M. (2005). Single or dual representations for reading and spelling?
Reading and Writing, 18, 257280.
Holmes, V. M., & Malone, N. (2004). Adult spelling strategies. Reading and Writing, 17,
537566.
Jrvikivi, J., Bertram, R., & Niemi, J. (2006). Affixal salience and the processing of derivational morphology:The role of suffix allomorphy. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21,
394431.
Juul, H. (2005). Grammatical awareness and the spelling of inflectional morphemes in Danish.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15, 87112.
Kemp, N., & Bryant, P. (2003). Do beez buzz? Rule-based and frequency-based knowledge in
learning to spell plurals. Child Development, 74, 6374.
Kent, B., & Smith, S. (2006). They only see it when the sun shines in my ears:Exploring perceptions of adolescent hearing aids users. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11,
461476.
Kim, Y. S. (2010). Componential skills in early spelling development in Korean. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 14, 137158.
Kessler, B., & Treiman, R. (2003). Is English spelling chaotic? Misconceptions concerning its
irregularity. Reading Psychology, 24, 267289.
Most, T., Levin, I., & Sarsour, M. (2008). The effect of Modern Standard Arabic orthography on
speech production by Arab children with hearing loss. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 13, 417431.
Nikolopoulos, D., Goulandis, N., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. (2006). The cognitive bases
of learning to read and spell in Greek:Evidence from a longitudinal study. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 94, 117.
Olson, D. (1994). The world on paper. Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.
Pacton, S., & Fayol, M. (2003). How do French children use morphosyntactic information when they spell adverbs and present participles? Scientific Studies of Reading, 23,
273287.
Pacton, S., Perruchet, P., Fayol, M., & Cleeremans, A. (2001). Implicit learning out of the
lab:The case of orthographic regularities. Journal of Experimental Psycholology:General,
130, 401426.
Ravid, D. (2002). Spelling errors in Hebrew: A developmental perspective. Megamot, 32,
2957. [In Hebrew]
Ravid, D. (2003). A developmental perspective on root perception in Hebrew and
Palestinian Arabic. In Y. Shimron (Ed.), Language processing and acquisition in languages of Semitic, root-based morphology (pp. 293319). Amsterdam,
Netherlands:Benjamins.
Ravid, D. (2005). Hebrew orthography and literacy. In R. M. Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.),
Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 339363). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
Ravid, D. (2006). Spelling function letters:Adevelopmental study. Scientific Report presented to
the Israeli Ministry of Education. [in Hebrew]
Ravid, D. (2011). Writing morpho(phono)logy:the psycholinguistics of Hebrew spelling. In
D. Aram & O. Korat (Eds.), Literacy and language (pp. 190210). Jerusalem:Magnes
[in Hebrew].
Ravid, D. (2012). Spelling morphology: the psycholinguistics of Hebrew spelling. New York,
NY:Springer.
Ravid, D., & Bar-On, A. (2005). Manipulating written Hebrew roots across development:The
interface of semantic, phonological and orthographic factors. Reading & Writing, 18,
231256.
Ravid, D., & Gillis, S. (2002). Teachers perception of spelling patterns and childrens spelling errors: A cross-linguistic perspective. In M. Neef., A. Neijt & R. Sproat (Eds.),
Consistency in writing systems (pp. 7195). Tbingen, Germany:Niemeyer Verlag.
Ravid, D., Dressler, W.U., Nir-Sagiv, B., Korecky-Krll, K., Souman, A., Rehfeldt, K.,...Gillis,
S. (2008). Core morphology in child directed speech:Crosslinguistic corpus analyses of
noun plurals. In H. Behrens (Ed.), Corpora in language acquisition research (pp. 2560).
Amsterdam, Netherlands:John Benjamins.
Rosa, J.M., & Nunes, T. (2008). Morphological priming effects on childrens spelling. Reading
and Writing, 21, 763781.
Rispens, J.E., McBride-Chang, C., & Reitsma, P. (2008). Morphological awareness and early
and advanced word recognition and spelling in Dutch. Reading and Writing, 21, 587607.
Sandra, D. (2007). Skills and representations in learning to spell and in experienced spellers.
In G. Jarema (Ed.), The mental lexicon: Core perspectives (pp. 207227). Amsterdam,
Netherlands:Elsevier.
Slobin, D.I. (2001). Form function relations:how do children find out what they are? In M.
Bowerman & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development
(pp. 406449). Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.
Templeton, S., & Morris, D. (2000). Spelling. In M. L.Kamil, P. B.Mosenthal, P. D.Pearson,
& R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 525543). Mahwah,
NJ:Erlbaum.
Treiman, R., & Kessler, B. (2005). Writing systems and spelling development. In M. Snowling
& C. Hulme (Eds.). The Science of reading: A handbook. (pp. 120134). Oxford,
England:Blackwell.
Van Hoogmoed, A. H., Verhoeven, L., Schreuder, R., & Knoors, H. (2011). Morphological
sensitivity in deaf readers of Dutch. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 619634.
Walker, J., & Hauerwas, L. (2006). Development of phonological, morphological, and orthographic knowledge in young spellers:The case of inflected verbs. Reading and Writing,
19, 819843.
Wimmer, H., & Landerl, K. (1997). How learning to spell German differs from learning to spell
English. In C. A.Perfetti, L. Rieben & M. Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell:research, theory,
and practice across languages (pp. 8196). Mahwah, New Jersey:Erlbaum.
Winskel, H., & Widjaja, V. (2007). Phonological awareness, letter knowledge, and literacy
development in Indonesian beginner readers and spellers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28,
2345.
CHAPTER7
The Influence of Verbal Working

Memory on Writing Skills in Children
with Hearing Loss
BARBAR A ARF, FEDERICA NICOLINI, AND
ELENA POZZEBON
hen writing, children with hearing loss (henceforth HL) can generate as many
ideas as their hearing peers and can organize them in a logical orderfor
example, by temporal and causalrelations (Almargot, Lambert, Thebault, & Dansac,
2007; Arf & Boscolo, 2006). However, they experience difficulty translating their
ideas into words, sentences, and discourse structures. They write fewer words (Spencer,
Barker, & Tomblin, 2003), make more spelling errors than their peers (Alamargot
etal., 2007; Colombo, Arf, & Bronte, 2012)and struggle in generating grammatical
relations between words and sentences, and connecting them in a text (Antia, Reed,
& Kreimeyer, 2005; Arf & Perondi, 2008; Musselman, & Szanto, 1998). Many factors combine to hinder text production in children with HL, but their poor phonological and morphological skills seem to be particularly important. Phonological skills
primarily have been associated with childrens difficulties in transcription (Colombo
Arf, & Bronte, 2012), whereas morphological skills reflect limited or incorrect use of
linguistic devices such as pronouns, articles, prepositions and conjunctions (free morphology) and of suffixes necessary for grammatical agreement (bound morphology)
(Geers, Nicholas, & Sedey, 2003; Spencer etal., 2003), which is clearly a great problem
in morphologically rich languages like Italian (Arf & Perondi, 2008).
The association between these linguistic skills and the working memory skills of
children with HL have been neglected in research studies on writing. Nevertheless,
verbal working memory sustains the childs ability to spell words, relate words in a
text, and support the coordination of spelling with other writing processes (see for
example Millogo, 2005; Kellogg, 1996; Swanson & Berninger, 1996).
The relationship between verbal working memory and written production is
both developmental and concurrent. Verbal working memory skills can explain
differences in language development and the acquisition of spelling (Baddeley,
Gathercole, & Papagno, 1998; Gathercole & Baddeley, 1990; Steinbrink & Klatte,
2008), which, in turn, influences the acquisition of writing. The relationship is also
concurrent, because the two systems of working memory and language production
(oral and written) share some components and draw on similar cognitive resources,
such as phonological encoding, serial ordering, and the processing and maintenance of verbal information (Acheson & Mac Donald, 2009).
For children with HL, measures of verbal working memory have been shown
to be one of the best predictors of oral language and reading acquisition (Cleary,
Pisoni, & Geers, 2001; Geers, 2003; Pisoni & Cleary, 2003). Therefore, it is surprising that only one study to date has focused on the relationship between working
memory and writing in deaf children (Alamargot etal., 2007). Our study extends
this work by demonstrating how even a relatively simple working memory measure (the Digit Span task) can explain differences in a complex linguistic activity
such as writing. Productivity, grammar (clause construction), cohesion, and spelling are the areas of written text production that are most compromised in children
with hearing loss (Alamargot etal., 2007; Antia etal., 2005; Arf & Perondi, 2008;
Spencer etal., 2003; Wilbur, 1977). As such, we are especially interested in examining these aspects of writing performance in relation to working memory.
VERBAL WORKING-MEMORY IN CHILDREN WITH

HEARING LOSS
The expression working memory refers to a complex temporary- memory system

that encodes, maintains and elaborates information, and executive control functions which enable the system to sustain the attention and regulate the effort during
the task.
Past research has shown that children with HL have specific weaknesses
when encoding and maintaining verbal and nonverbal information in serial order
in working memory tasks. Children and adults with HL are not sensitive to the
temporal order of information in the same way as their hearing peers (Rudner,
Andin, & Rnnberg, 2009; Rudner, Davidsson & Rnnberg, 2010; Rudner &
Rnnberg, 2008). It is assumed that this is directly related to the effects of early
auditory deprivation. Indeed, the cognitive processing abilities necessary to serially
encode, maintain, and retrieve verbal information seem to develop as a result of
the childs early auditory experiences and language acquisition, which are hypothesized to directly shape these mechanisms and the verbal working memory system
(Cleary etal., 2001). In children with HL, early auditory deprivation may hinder
this development, with consequences on the acquisition of verbal language and the
development of reading and writing.
ASSESSING WORKING MEMORY BY DIGIT SPAN TASKS
Digit span tasks are simple tasks commonly used to assess the individuals ability to
hold serial information in verbal working memory, to concentrate and to manipulate that information to produce some result. Digit span tasks are components of
the widely used Wechsler intelligence scales for adults and children (Wechsler,
1997a, 1997b). The Wechslers Digit Span subscales provide two different measures of verbal working memory: a forward and a backward digit span. Both are
measures of recall of digit sequences, but the first taps the ability to maintain and
rehearse sequential information in the direct (forward) order, the second in reverse
order (backward), requiring a transformation of the input and thus greater executive control (Kaufman, 1979). The total Digit Span score is the sum of forward and
backward spans.
Digit Span is considered a good measure of verbal working memory for children with hearing loss (Cleary etal., 2001; Geers, 2003; Pisoni & Cleary, 2003).
In particular, Pisoni and Cleary (2003) show how forward digit span is a good
indicator of their rehearsal skills, that is of their ability to maintain information
in working memory via refreshing of the material to be remembered. This
ability predicts oral language acquisition (Cleary etal., 2001; Pisoni & Cleary,
2003). Digit Span scores also show significant correlations with the performance
of children with HL in cognitively demanding language tasks, such as reading
(Geers,2003).
In its traditional form, the Digit Span task is administered aurally, through an
oral presentation of digits, but some variations of this task have recently been introduced and tested (Helland & Asbjrnsen, 2004; Kemtes & Allen, 2008). Kemtes
and Allen, (2008) showed from a clinical perspective that a visual presentation of
Digit Span tasks may be a viable alternative to the standard auditory presentation
for individuals with hearing loss.
VERBAL WORKING-MEMORY IN WRITING
In hearing childrens writing, verbal working memory contributes significantly to

different aspects of written production: the ability to maintain temporary traces
and refresh verbal information can explain the lower-order transcription skills, such
as spelling and handwriting, whereas the executive component of verbal working
memory explains better higher-order text generation skills, that is, the translation
of ideas into words, sentences, and discourse structures (Swanson & Berninger,
1996). Alamargot etal. (2007) investigated whether this same pattern emerged for
W o r k i n g M e m o ry & W r i t i n g S k i ll s i n C h i l d r e n W i t h H e a r i n g L o s s [ 8 7 ]
Table7.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF DEAF PARTICIPANTS WITH HIGH AND LOW

SPAN:HEARING THRESHOLD, FIRST LANGUAGE, COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION,
TROG SCORES, DIGIT SPAN
Low Span
P
Age
HT
FL
C1
C2
Boy
Girl
C3
C4
CI
TROG Tsd
DS
FD
BD
15
14
> 90 dB
> 75 dB
Oral
Oral
26
32
>3 sd
>3 sd
5
6
2
3
3
3
Girl
12
> 90 dB
Oral
Boy
10
> 75 dB
Signs*
50
>3 sd
16
>3 sd
C5
Boy
11
> 90 dB
Oral
30
>3 sd
C6
Girl
14
> 45 dB
Oral
18
>3 sd
C7
Boy
10
C8
Boy
12
> 90 dB
Oral
26
>3 sd
> 90 dB
Oral
33
>3 sd
C9
Boy
14
> 90 dB
Oral
49
>3 sd
C10
Boy
11
> 45 dB
Signs
42
>3 sd
C11
Boy
> 90 dB
Oral
57
>3 sd
C12
Girl
11
> 90 dB
Oral
yes
22
>3 sd
C13
Girl
13
> 90 dB
Oral
32
>3 sd
C14
Boy
11
> 75 dB
Signs
25
>3 sd
C15
Girl
> 90 dB
Oral
yes
17
>3 sd
C16
C17
Girl
Girl
15
9
> 90 dB
> 75 dB
Oral
Oral
41
32
>3 sd
>3 sd
6
5
4
3
2
2
High Span
C18
C19
Boy
Girl
10
12
> 75 dB
> 90 dB
Oral
Signs
74
61
=norm
>3 sd
10
11
6
4
4
7
C20
C21
Boy
> 90 dB
Oral
yes
60
>3 sd
11
Girl
14
unknown unknown unknown
48
>3 sd
10
C22
Boy
14
> 90 dB
Signs
41
>3 sd
12
C23
Boy
10
> 90 dB
Oral
yes
67
3 sd
15
C24
Boy
14
> 45 dB
Oral
78
=norm
13
C25
Girl
14
63
>3 sd
12
C26
Girl
11
> 45 dB
Oral
44
>3 sd
10
C27
Boy
11
> 90 dB
Oral
yes
71
>2 sd
12
C28
Girl
13
77
=norm
13
C29
Girl
11
> 90 dB
Oral
yes
80
=norm
14
C30
Boy
12
> 90 dB
Signs
68
3 sd
10
C31
Boy
> 90 dB
Oral
65
>2 sd
12
C32
Boy
13
> 90 dB
Oral
65
>2 sd
10
C33
C34
Boy
Boy
12
11
> 45 dB
> 45 dB
Oral
Oral
48
68
>3 sd
3 sd
11
10
5
6
6
4
Note:*Italian Sign Language.

P=Participant, G=Gender, HT=Hearing Threshold, FL=First Language, CI=Cochlear Implant, TROG=TROG
score, Tsd=TROG Standard Deviation from age equivalent norms, DS=Digit Span (total), FD=Forward Digit
span, BD=Backward Digit span.
students with hearing loss in French. The authors found a significant association
between students executive capacity of verbal working memory and their text generation skills, but only in compositional fluency (number of words written). They
did not find significant correlations between the temporary maintenance of phonological information and spelling errors in students with HL.
The study presented in this chapter examines the writing performance of 34
children with HL from fourth to eighth grade (aged 914). The children were
divided in two groups according to their performance in the WISC-R Digit Span
test:High and Low Digit Span groups. The aim was to investigate which aspects of
text production were most influenced by verbal working memory skills and what
components of digit span (forward or backward) explained better their writing
performance.
METHOD
Participants
Participants were selected from a larger population of about 60 children who

were deaf. Participants with either a verbal Digit Span score above the 75th or
below the 25th percentile were selected for the study. An adapted digit span
taskthe WISC-R (Wechsler, 1974)was administered bi-modally to all children in both the direct and inverse conditions. To maximize the childrens comprehension of the auditory stimuli, digits were displayed visually using the fingers
while being pronounced aloud. Participants responses were oral, in accordance
with WISCR administration guidelines. Administration of this adapted version
of the Digit Span to a group of hearing children of same age as our participants
showed performances equivalent to those for the auditory administered version
(Wechsler, 1974).
Two groups were identified: 17 students with HL with digit span scores (lowspan group = LS; Mage = 11.76, age range 915), and 17 students with high digit
span scores (high-span group = HS; Mage = 11.76, age range 914). The two
groups were equivalent for gender (2 = .49, p = .49), age (F(1,33) = .3, p = .85),
first language (2 = .07, p = .79) and rehabilitation history (2 = 2.17, p = .14).
The children came from different regions of Northern Italy (Veneto, Lombardia,
and Emilia-Romagna) and from different schools, including special schools for
the deaf and public mainstream schools. The majority of children attended mainstream schools. The characteristics of participants in the study are presented
in Table 7.1. With the exception of 4 children, all performed from 2 to 3 SD
below age equivalent norms on the Test for the Reception of Grammar (TROG;
Bishop, 1982). However, ANOVAs revealed significant differences between the
two groups in receptive grammar (TROG: LS M = 32.24 versus HS M = 63.41),
F(1,33) = 57.53, p<.001, and in a phonemic awareness (PA) task (Arf & Rossi,
in preparation; LS M = 17.00 versus HS M = 30.76), F(1,33) = 44.39, p<.001,
with HS children outperforming LS children in both tasks. These differences

remained even when the four outliers were eliminated from the analyses.
Procedure
Children were asked to look at a picture story (Frog, where are you?) (Mayer, 1969),
tell the story to the experimenter, and then write the story for a hearing friend of
the researchers who was very interested in school-aged childrens written narratives
but did not know Frog, where are you? Instructions were given in written and oral
form or bimodally (oral language plus signs), according the preferred mode of each
child. No time limit was given.
The written texts were analyzed separately by the second and third authors for
length (number of words and clauses), grammatical and morphological accuracy,
word choice, spelling and cohesion. Scoring criteria are presented next. Inter-rater
agreement ranged between 73% for clauses to 100% for spelling errors. Cases of
disagreement were discussed and resolved.
Spelling Skills
Misspellings. The total number of misspelled words was calculated. Errors were
classified as either phonologically plausible (PP), if their spelling preserved the
phonology of the word (e.g., quarda versus guarda/he looks), phonologically
implausible (PI) if the spelling did not preserve the phonology (bambibino versus bambino/child) and morphological (M), if the misspelling seemed related
to an incorrect representation of the derivation or inflection of the word (e.g.,
il cane caduta versus caduto/the dog fell). Phonologically plausible errors
included single errors in accented words, such as accent omission (e.g., trovo
versus trov/he found), errors in geminates (e.g., arrabiato versus arrabbiato/
angry), subsitutions (as in quarda versus guarda) or unacceptable orthographic
fusions (e.g., adetto versus ha detto/he said), which preserved the articulatory
and phonological structure of the word. Phonologically implausible errors
varied, from complex errors, where more than one grapheme was transcribed
incorrectly (as in bambibino versus bambino/child), and single errors, where the
error was limited to a single grapheme, but the omission or substitution did not
preserve the phonology of the word (as in sappa versus scappa/escapes). Errors
were coded as morphological only when the misspelling also reflected wrong
morphological representations of a word-ending or prefix, or the wrong application of inflectional rules (e.g., il cane caduta /the dog fell, incorrect inflection: feminine versus caduto, correct inflection: masculine; or dormere /to
sleep, incorrect conjugation:second conjugation, versus dormire, correct:third
conjugation). These errors were phonologically implausible, but only limited to
word inflections and, differently from the other phonological implausible errors,
they consisted in the production of real words differing from the target word in
gender, number, verb conjugation, or mode.
Text Generation Skills
Total number of words. All meaningful recognizable orthographic strings within

the linguistic context of the text were counted as words. If the orthographic string
was unintelligible, it was not counted.
Total number of clauses. The texts produced were segmented in clauses (a
predicate and its argument). Complements of modal verbs and aspectual verbs
(e.g., andare a vedere/go and see; cominci a piangere/started to cry) were considered
part of the main verb. Because students with HL use many infinitives, infinitives
alone or plus argument (e.g., e poi [] andare via/and then [] to go away; bambino
andare bosco/boy go wood) were coded as clauses (Arf & Perondi, 2008).
Accuracy in word choice. Word choices were considered accurate when
the word was semantically correct in the context of the text. The proportion
of correct word choices over the total number of words used in the text was
computed.
Proportion of correct clauses. Only grammatically correct clauses were coded
and the proportion of correct clauses over the total number of clauses in text was
calculated.
Accuracy in free morphology. Function words (pronouns, articles, conjunctions) were considered correct if they were grammatically correct in the context of
a clause or between clauses. The proportion of correct function words over the total
number of function words in text was calculated.
Accuracy in verb morphology. The total number of correct verb inflections
as a proportion of the total number of verbs produced was calculated. Due to the
incidence of errors in verb-noun agreements this was considered a good index of
bound morphology.
Free and bound morphology are particularly rich in Italian and thus constrain
the possibility of relating words in sentences and in the text.
Cohesion. Text cohesion is a measure of the overall quality of the text, indicating the extent to which clauses and linguistic information are organized and connected to generate a fluent composition. We used the Scinto Index as a measure of
text cohesion1 (Scinto, 1984).
RESULTS
P values were adjusted for multiple comparisons to <.006. Bonferroni corrections

were used.
Individual Differences in Writing

Text Generation
The results revealed that the writing performance of the two groups differed significantly for the proportion of misspellings, use of verb morphology, proportion
of correct clauses produced, and ability to generate text cohesion. No differences
between the groups were found for productivity (number of words and clauses produced), word choice, or the use of free morphology (see Table7.2).
Spelling Errors
A separate MANCOVA with Span Group as between factor and Total Number of
Words covariate, was performed to compare the different types of spelling error in
the two groups. Bonferroni corrections were not used in this case, since only three
comparisons were performed. This analysis revealed a significant difference between
groups for phonologically implausible errors, F(1,32) = 4.443, p<.05, 2 = .13, more
frequent in the LS group (LS M = 4.59 versus HS M = 1.18). Morphological errors
were rare for both groups, but were significantly more frequent in the LS group (LS
M = 1.94 versus HS M = .76): F(1,32) = 8.030, p < .01, 2 = .21.
Table 7.2 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE LS AND HS GROUP

FOR TOTAL WORDS AND CLAUSES PRODUCED (TOT_WORDS AND
TOT_CLAUSES), MISSPELLINGS, CORRECT WORD CHOICES, CORRECT
VERB MORPHOLOGY (VERB_MORPH), CORRECT FREE_MORPHOLOGY
(FREE_MORPH),CORRECT CLAUSES (CORRECT CLAUSES) AND COHESION
(SCINTO INDEX). PROPORTIONS ARE REPORTED FOR MISSPELLING AND
CORRECTNESS
LS
Measure
HS
SD
SD
F(1, 32)
Tot_Words
Tot_Clauses
107
19.59
68.58
13.52
158
27.47
49.77
8.78
6.07
4.06
=.02
=.05
.16
.11
Misspellings
.11
.08
.03
.04
12.19
<.001
.28
Word Choices
.98
.02
.99
.01
3.67
=.06
.10
Correct_Clauses
.27
.24
.65
.27
19.47
<.001
.38
Verb_Morph
.52
.28
.83
.18
14.72
<.001
.32
Free_Morph
Scinto Index
.48
.32
.32
.29
.47
.73
.34
.19
0.01
24.51
=.91
<.001
.00
.43
The Unique Contribution of Working Memory:Correlations

andRegression Analyses
The LS and HS groups also differed for receptive grammar (TROG scores) and
phonological awareness (PA) abilities. To control for the contribution of these
skills to writing we ran hierarchical multiple regressions.
Table 7.3 summarizes the results of Pearson correlations. The association
between age and writing measures was not significant. The association between
digit span scores and age, and between age, TROG, and PA were also not significant
(see Table7.3).
Table 7.3 shows that forward and backward Digit Span scores correlated significantly with misspellings, verb morphology, correct clauses, and cohesion.
Correlations with these measures ranged from -.51 to .70. TROG and PA scores
also correlated significantly with the same measures, ranging from .44 to .74 (see
Table 7.3).
Results of the hierarchical regressions are presented in Tables7.4a, 7.4b, and 7.5.
Because we were interested in examining only the contribution of forward and backward Digit Span to writing, we entered language (TROG) and phonological awareness
(PA) scores first, to control for these variables. Forward Digit Span was entered second
Table7.3 SUMMARY OF CORRELATIONS BETWEEN AGE, DIGIT

SPANSCORES, TROG SCORES, PHONEMIC AWARENESS SCORES
ANDWRITING MEASURES
1
1. Age
2. FD
1
.13 1
3. BD
.19
.62** 1
4. TROG
.02
.80** .70** 1
5. PA
.11
.59** .66** .78** 1
6. Words total
.30
.19
.45* .38*
.34*
7. Clauses total .28
.15
.42* .32
.37*
.93** 1
10
11
12
13
8. Misspellings -.16 -.51** -.58** -.57** -.53** -.57** -.53** 1

9. Word choices .03
.40*
.27
.27
.42*
.26
.25
-.62** 1
10. Verb_morph -.09 .60** .52** .44*
.53** .44*
.46* -.51** .34
11. Free_morph -.14 -.05
-.30
-.05
.02
-.09
.03
-.06
-.04 -.12
12. Clauses corr. -.06 .70** .57** .67** .51** .58** .49** -.67** .45* .77** .06
13. Scinto index .25 .65** .62** .72** .74** .37* .07 -.61** .44* .61** -.02
1
.65** 1
*p < .05, **p < .005.

Note:FD=Forward Digits scores; BD=Backward Digits scores; TROG=Receptive Grammar; PA=Phonemic
Awareness; Word choices=proportion of correct word choices; Verb_ morph=proportion of correct bind verb
morphology; Free_morph = proportion of correct free morphology; Clauses corr. = Correct clauses; Scinto
index=cohesion.
and then backward Digit Span to verify whether the more executive component of
digit span explained variance in writing after controlling for the ability to temporarily
maintain verbal information in memory, which is significantly predictive of language
performance in children with HL (Cleary etal., 2001; Pisoni & Cleary, 2003). Because
only misspelling, verb morphology, correct clauses, and cohesion appeared to differ
between the two groups, we considered these variables in our regressions.
Misspellings and Spelling Errors
Tables7.4a and 7.4b display the results of the hierarchical regressions for the total
number of misspellings (7.4a) and type of spelling error (7.4b):PP, PI, and M errors.
After controlling for language and PA scores, Digit Span scores did not explain
further variance in misspellings (Table4a).
PP errors. None of the factors considered explained variance in PP errors.
PI errors. Language scores accounted for 24% of variance in PI errors, but once
controlled for these skills, FD explained a further 16% of variance in PI errors:the
higher the FD scores the fewer PI errors in the texts.
M errors. None of the factors explained variance in morphological errors in spelling. This effect could be due to the low incidence of these errors in the writing task.
Verb Morphology, Correct Clauses, and Cohesion
Table7.5 reports the results of hierarchical regressions for verb morphology, correct clauses, and cohesion.
Table7.4a HIERARCHICAL MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSES:DEPENDENT
VARIABLES ARE TOTAL MISSPELLINGS
Misspellings
Predictor
R2
Step 1
Control variables
.34**
Step 2
.01
Forward Digit
Step 3
.15
.04
Backward Digit
Total R2
N
.31
.40**
34
Note:**p < .005.

Control variables:language skills (TROG and PA).
Table7.4b HIERARCHICAL MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSES:DEPENDENT

VARIABLES ARE PHONOLOGICALLY PLAUSIBLE (PP) SPELLING ERRORS,
PHONOLOGICALLY IMPLAUSIBLE (PI) SPELLING ERRORS, MORPHOLOGICAL
SPELLING ERRORS (M)
PP errors
Predictor
Step 1
Control variables
.04
Step 2
.01
Forward Digit
Step 3
M errors
R2
.24*
.16*
.02
.05
.67
.37
.02
.08
.78
.06
34
.05
.38
Backward Digit
Total R2
N
PI errors
.06
.41
.40*
34
.17
34
Note:*p .01.
Table7.5 HIERARCHICAL MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSES:DEPENDENT

VARIABLES ARE VERB MORPHOLOGY, CORRECT CLAUSES AND COHESION
Verb morphology
Correct clauses
Predictor
R2
R2
Step 1
Control variables
.28*
Step 2
.21**
Forward Digit
Step 3
R2
.02
.47*
.01
.22
.24
.00
.17
.54**
34
.60**
.08*
.02
.50**
34
.44**
.76**
Backward Digit
Total R2
N
Cohesion
.10
.62**
34
Note:*p < .05; **p < .005.
Verb morphology. After language knowledge and PA skills were controlled

(R2=.28), forward Digit Span explained a further 21% of unique variance in the
use of verb morphology. Backward Digit Span did not produce any further increase
in explained variance.
Correct clauses. Forward span contributed uniquely to variance in correct
clauses (R2change=.08), after TROG scores and PA skills were controlled, but again,
backward span did not contribute to explaining further variance.
Cohesion. A different pattern was found for cohesion, where the control
variables (TROG and PA scores) explained a significant part of the variance in
performance (R2=.60), and forward and backward Digit Span did not contribute
further.
DISCUSSION
The forward and backward digit span scores of the children with HL in this study
were significantly associated with their transcription and text generation skills. This
result is consistent with other findings (Geers, 2003) and reveals that the Digit
Span task could be a valuable index of the working memory resources exploited by
children with HL in understanding and producing written language. Nevertheless,
the association between verbal working memory and language development (i.e.,
the childs vocabulary, grammar, and phonological abilities) suggests caution in
interpreting these findings. Verbal-working-memory skills are developmentally
associated with language acquisition (Gathercole & Baddeley, 1990). Therefore,
individual differences in verbal working memory also entail differences in other
language skills, which can, in turn, affect writing. To control for these factors and
examine the contribution of verbal working memory to writing, we ran hierarchical
regression analyses. The results of these led to the identification of three aspects
of writing performance that can be considered sensitive to the verbal-working
memory skills of the child with HL:the ability to spell, use verb morphology, and
translate ideas into complete clauses, that is, to organize the text at the microlevel.
Individual differences in these skills seem to be partly explained by the temporary
storage and rehearsal abilities tapped by the forward Digit Span task. Children with
higher forward Digit Span scores made less implausible spelling errors, used better
verb morphology, and produced more complete and correct clauses.
The greater ability of HS children to maintain sequential information in memory,
and, probably, their ability to refresh the phonological traces of words while writing, contribute to explaining why they produced less spelling errors and less phonologically implausible errors than the LS group. This finding is in contrast with those
of Alamargot etal. (2007) who failed to find these working-memory effects in their
study. The characteristics of the French and Italian orthography may clarify why. In
Italian, sublexical strategies are normally successful in spelling (Arf, De Bernardi,
Pasini, & Poeta, 2012), and thus rehearsal and phonological memory skills (like
those tapped by the Digit Span task) may explain the spelling performance of the
children with HL, as they strongly support the use of these procedures. French has
a deeper morpho-phonemic orthography in which other factors may account for
the performance of writers with HL.
The ability of children with HL to maintain verbal information through rehearsal
also contributed to explaining text generation skills, especially the ability to link
words into clauses in a grammatically correct way. This suggests that the temporary
storage component of working memory may be crucial for the translation process
as well as transcription for these children.
In general, the results of this study suggest that verbal working memory may
be more involved when text generation requires the processing of linguistic relations. Word choices and productivity seem to be less affected by verbal working memory skills for these children. Further, the verbal-working-memory skills
considered in this study did not seem to explain the childrens ability to produce
the necessary relations between clauses to establish cohesion in a text: These
involve the use of free morphology (pronouns and conjunctions) and logical links (e.g., causal or temporal relations) to connect sentences. To produce
cohesion, linguistic skills seem more important. However, it is possible that the
capacity to generate linguistic relations between elements that are distant in the
text is affected by central executive functions that could be not well tapped by
the Digit Span task.
To date, interventions addressed to developing verbal working memory in children with HL have been neglected, and most of the clinical and educational interventions in oral language address speech discrimination and phonological awareness
skills. Our findings suggest the need for interventions that are more focused on the
components of the working-memory system. However, it is also likely that the experience with language itself (either verbal or sign language), and complex language
tasks in particular (i.e., writing), could foster the development of this important
memory system. This may happen if children are explicitly taught to focus on linguistic tasks that apply a cognitive load, such as relating sentences or discovering
linguistic relations in discourse or in a text (Arf, Boscolo, & Sacilotto, 2012).
AKNOWLEDGMENT
This research was funded by the by the University of Padova, Grant STPD08HANE
Learning Difficulties and Disabilities from Primary School to University: Diagnosis,
Intervention, and Services for the Community.
NOTE
1. It corresponds to the number of recognizable and understandable links between clauses as
a proportion of the overall number of clauses produced in the text. Ascore of 1 was given
for two clauses that are logically and/or linguistically related, and a score of 0 when the
link between two subsequent clauses is unclear or unrecognizable.
REFERENCES
Acheson, D. J., & MacDonald, M. C. (2009). Verbal working memory and language
Production: Common approaches to the serial ordering of verbal information.
Psychological Bulletin, 135, 5068.
Alamargot, D., Lambert, E., Thebault, C., & Dansac, C. (2007). Text composition by deaf and
hearing middle-school students:The role of working memory. Reading and Writing, 20,
333360.
Antia, S.D., Reed, S., & Kreimeyer, K.H. (2005). Written language of deaf and hard-of-hearing
students in public schools. Journal of Deaf Studies of Deaf education, 10, 244255.
Arf, B., & Boscolo, P. (2006). Causal coherence in deaf and hearing students written narratives. Discourse Processes, 42(3), 271300. doi:10.1207/s15326950dp4203_2
Arf, B., Boscolo, P., & Sacilotto, S. (2012). Improving anaphoric cohesion in deaf students
writing. In M. Torrance, D. Alamargot, M. Castell, F. Ganier, O. Kruse, A. Mangen,
L. Tolchinsky, & L. Van (Eds.), Studies in writing (Vol. 25). Learning to write effectively:Current trends in European Research. Bingley, UK:Emerald Group.
Arf, B., De Bernardi, B., Pasini, M., & Poeta, F. (2012). Toward a redefinition of spelling in
shallow orthographies:Phonological, lexical and grammatical skills in learning to spell
Italian. In V. W.Berninger (Ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp. 359387). NewYork:Psychology Press/Taylor
Francis Group.
Arf, B., & Perondi, I. (2008). Deaf and hearing students referential strategies in writing:What
referential cohesion tells us about deaf students literacy development. First Language,
28, 355374.
Arf, B., & Rossi, M.C. (in preparation). The ability to construct oral and written stories in
hearing and deaf children aged 7-11years.
Baddeley, A., Gathercole, S., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review, 105, 158173.
Bishop, D.V. M. (1982). Test for the reception of grammar. Oxford, England:Medical Research
Council (translation and adaptation to Italian by Michielin, Rolletto, and Sartori,
unpublished).
Cleary, M., Pisoni, D.B., & Geers, A. (2001). Some measures of verbal and spatial working
memory in eight- and nine year-old hearing-impaired children with cochlear implants.
Ear and Hearing, 22, 395411.
Colombo, L., Arf, B., & Bronte, T. (2012). The influence of phonological mechanisms in
written spelling of profoundly deaf children. Reading and Writing, 25(8), 20212038.
doi:10.1007/s11145-011-9343-6
Gathercole, S.E., & Baddeley, A.D. (1990). The role of phonological memory in vocabulary
acquisition:Astudy of young children learning new names. British Journal of Psychology,
81, 439454.
Geers, A.E. (2003). Predictors of reading skill development in children with early cochlear
implantation. Ear & Hearing, 24, 59S68S.
Geers, A. E., Nicholas, J. G., & Sedey, A. L. (2003). Language skills of children with early
cochlear implantation. Ear & Hearing, 24, 44S58S.
Helland, T., & Asbjrnsen, A. (2004). Digit span in dyslexia: Variation according to language comprehension and mathematics skills. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology 26, 3142.
Kaufman, A. S. (1979). Intelligent testing with the WISC-R. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Kellogg, R.T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M.Levy & S. Ransdell
(Eds.), The science of writing:theories, methods and applications (pp. 5772). Mahwah,
NJ:Erlbaum.
Kemtes, K.A., & Allen, D.N. (2008). Presentation modality influences WAIS Digit Span performance in younger and older adults. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology,
30, 661665.
Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, where are you? NewYork:Dial Press.
Millogo, V.E. (2005). The use of anaphoric pronouns by French children in narrative:evidence
from constrained text production. Journal of Child Language, 35, 439461.
Musselman, C.R., & Szanto, G. (1998). The written language of deaf adolescents:patterns of
performance. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 3, 245257.
Pisoni, D. B., & Cleary, M. (2003). Measures of working memory span and verbal reharsal
speed in deaf children after cochlear implantation. Ear & Hearing, 24, 106120.
Rudner, M., Andin, J., & Rnnberg, J. (2009). Working memory, deafness and sign language.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50, 495505.
Rudner, M., Davidsson, L., & Rnnberg, J. (2010). Effects of age on the temporal organization of working memory in deaf signers. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 17,
360383.
Rudner, M., & Rnnberg, J. (2008). Explicit processing demands reveal language modality specific organization of working memory. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13,
466484. doi:10.1093/deafed/enn005
Scinto, L.F. M. (1984). The architectonics of texts produced by children and the development
of higher cognitive functions, Discourse Processes, 7, 371418.
Spencer, L.J., Barker, B.A., & Tomblin, J.B. (2003). Exploring the language and literacy outcomes of pediatric cochlear implant users. Ear and Hearing, 24, 236247.
Steinbrink, C., & Klatte, M. (2008). Phonological working memory in German children with
poor reading and spelling abilities. Dyslexia, 14, 271290.
Swanson H.L., & Berninger, V.W. (1996). Individual differences in childrens working memory
and writing skills. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 358385.
Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (Rev. Ed.). San Antonio,
Texas:Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1997a). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scaleadministration and scoring manual (3rd
ed.). San Antonio, TX:The Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1997b). WMSIII administration and scoring manual. San Antonio, TX: The
Psychological Corporation.
Wilbur, R.B. (1977). An explanation of deaf childrens difficulty with certain syntactic structures in English. The Volta Review, 79, 8592.
CHAPTER8
Composing Academic Essays

Using Dictation and Technology to Improve Fluency
JOHN ALBERTINI, MICH AEL STINSON, AND
ARGIROUL A Z ANG ANA
omposing an academic essay requires language proficiency, content knowledge, and writing skill. Training students to use their knowledge and skills
to produce fluent, coherent, and interesting academic writing is the goal of many
first-year English composition courses at North American universities. As Faigley
and colleagues pointed out in 1985, Of the three writing processes that have
received the most attention from researchersplanning, producing text, and revisingproducing text is the most controversial and the least accessible (p.43). In
this chapter, we review research on the use of dictation and automatic speech recognition to facilitate students production of text, and we report results of an exploratory study using a dictation-with-translation paradigm and automatic speech
recognition to compose college essays.
Researchers in the field have used one of two models to describe the production
or composition of text. In the Hayes-Flower model of composing, cognitive processes operate on internal representations to produce written, spoken, or graphic
output (Hayes, 1996). The writer uses cognitive processes such as problem solving, decision-making, and memory (1996, p.13). In another version of composing,
the writer goes back and forth between two cognitive spaces, a content space and
a rhetorical space (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987). In other words, when writers
compose, they must decide what to say and how to say it. In these models, it is
assumed that fluent composing works best when the writer is able to draw rapidly
on language and content knowledge to make decisions about what to include and
how to design the text.
In 1979, Perl speculated that inexperienced adult writers preoccupation with

production skills such as spelling, punctuation, word choice, and syntactic form
interrupted the flow of ideas and lead to poorer quality texts. Scardamalia, Bereiter,
and Goelman (1982) asked fourth- and sixth-grade children to dictate texts and
found that these texts were generally longer and of higher quality than their written
texts. The authors attribute this difference to the condition of composing without
the low-level demands of writing (1982, p.201). Because speech production is
mostly automatic, children dictating their thoughts could remain at higher levels of
representation and thereby produce much more relevant content.
The advent of speech recognition technology (henceforth, automatic speech
recognition, or ASR) suggested a new strategy for teaching writing to unskilled
writers, second language learners, and students with learning disabilities. Using dictation and ASR would allow writers to bypass low-level demands such as spelling,
punctuation, and pen manipulation (De La Paz & Graham, 1997; Wetzel, 1997).
Young writers slow rate of handwriting, it was reasoned, may cause the contents of
working memory to be lost (Reece & Cumming, 1996). The point of using dictation and ASR would be to reduce cognitive load thereby increasing speed and fluency while composing.
As a strategy for teaching composition, dictation belongs to the process pedagogy approach. Emerging in the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s,
this new approach to composition took talk-write as opposed to think-write
as a model for writing conferences and classroom work (Killingsworth, 1993).
Educators like Zoellner and Elbow encouraged students to speak their ideas as an
initial step toward written composition (Killingsworth, 1993). Dictation was one
way to get their ideas on paper so that they could then reflect on them.
Early studies of dictation and ASR to teach writing showed mixed results. First,
young students were unfamiliar with the process of dictation. Second, the dictation
needed to be transcribed. Third, some composers lost their place when they could
not see an ongoing external representation of the text (Reece & Cumming, 1996).
More recently, MacArthur and Cavalier (2004) found that high school students
with learning disabilities produced higher-quality essays using dictation and ASR
than they did using handwriting. In their study, students wrote essays in three conditions: by hand, by dictating to a scribe, and by using ASR. The essays produced
in both dictation conditions were qualitatively better than those written by hand.
Those dictated to a scribe were the best. The authors interpretation of these results
is that both dictation conditions freed the students from concerns about spelling
and handwriting, but that the use of ASR added the cognitive burdens of speaking
clearly and attending to the output for errors.
Deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) students when composing are faced with challenges similar to hearing L2 students (see, for example, Albertini & Schley, 2011 for
a review of research). DHH college students, however, typically differ from hearing
L2 students in one important respect. Given a common underlying proficiency in
D e af S t u d e n ts C o m p o s i n g A ca d e m i c E s s ay s [ 1 0 1 ]
their native language and adequate motivation, hearing students from non-English
speaking backgrounds should be able to transfer the experience of learning to read
and write in their first language to the new language (Cummins, 1986). DHH students who have learned a sign language typically come to the task with less such
experience, because sign languages have no common written form (Mayer & Wells,
1996; Mayer & Akamatsu, 2003).
Mindful of this challenge, instructors in North America have found ingenious
ways to take advantage of students knowledge of American Sign Language to plan,
produce, and revise text. To mirror the process of encoding speech to print, invented
written codes have been used to teach beginning deaf readers to encode sign into
print (Suppalla, Wix, & McKee, 2001). To contrast the grammars of ASL and
English and to teach translation and revision to college-age writers, written translations (Akamatsu & Armour, 1987)and video drafts (Christie, Wilkins, McDonald,
& Neuroth-Gimbrone, 1999) have been used.1 Biser and colleagues (1998) first
attempted the use of dictation to provide testing accommodation for DHH college students. In their study, students signed essays to an interpreter whose voiced
interpretation was later transcribed. Although the procedure seemed promising,
introduction of an interpreter raised questions of authorship and ownership of the
writing. Similarly, Schmitz and Keenan (2005) discuss the problem of evaluating
drafts that have been written with help of tutors and friends.
Our goal was to investigate the effect of a dictation-with-translation-paradigm
on the process of composing and the quality of a college essay. In this study, the
paradigm would only be used for production of a first draft. Students could then
make whatever revisions they wished in subsequent drafts, thus preserving authorship of the text. Here, students signed their drafts to a sign-language interpreter who
voiced an English version into a computer equipped with ASR software.
In this study, the main question was whether students would benefit from dictating a draft in ASL and then seeing a printed English translation of it almost immediately. Would students find a dictation-with-translation-paradigm helpful in writing
a first draft of a college essay, and would this paradigm make a difference in the quality of the writing? In other words, if this paradigm reduced cognitive load, would
the writers compose longer texts and produce more coherent writing?
METHOD
Participants
Participants in this study (4 female; 6 male) were recruited from first-year composition courses at the Rochester Institute of Technology. Their ages ranged from 19
to 28 years (Mage = 20.8 years), and hearing losses (pure tone averages were available for 7 of the participants) ranged from 73 dB to 115 dB (Mean hearing loss =
99.4 dB). All students considered themselves good users of ASL. (On a scale from
1 to 10, with 10 being very good, the students mean rating was 7.38; SD = 2;
[ 1 0 2 ] Part II:Impact of Oral Language Problems on Written Text
N = 9). One student came from a family with two deaf parents. All of the others
came from hearing families. All were fluent signers at the time of this study. Eight
out of the 10 reported that their preferred mode of communication was either ASL
alone or speech and sign together (simultaneous communication). Instructors in
deaf-only classes used simultaneous communication, and in mainstream classes sign
language interpreters typically used English-based signing with mouth movement.
Procedure
The students in this study were all enrolled in lower-level English composition
courses for which they were required to write several formal academic essays. These
assignments required analysis of personal experience and fact and opinion from
published texts. Topics ranged from the abuse of alcohol, to gambling addiction, to
gender roles in society. For this study, participants were asked to produce the first
draft for one assignment using a dictated text (the ASR condition) and the first
draft of a second essay on their own without dictation (the standard condition).
Before coming to an ASL-ASR session, each student was asked to prepare a mental outline of points to include in the first draft. At the one-hour ASL-ASR session,
the student signed a rough draft. As shown in Figure8.1, one of the investigators
videotaped the student, and the interpreter (with headset) spoke his interpretation
into the computer. The computer immediately converted this voice interpretation
into text on the computer screen.2 Punctuation and formatting were added and
transcription errors were corrected during and after the taping by the interpreter.
Figure8.1.
The ASL-ASR Condition.
Before leaving the session, the student received a paper copy of the
ASR-generated text and the videotape of his or her signing. The students used these
to write a first draft (generally within one to two days) a copy of which was submitted to the investigators. The students also submitted a copy of the first draft of
another essay written on their own for the same class. At the end of the term, after
students had completed essays in the ASR and standard conditions, they returned
for short, evaluative interviews. Here students were asked if they found the ASR
text helpful in writing a draft, and they were asked to rate the quality and readability of the ASR dictated text. They were also asked to rate the quality of the draft
written from the ASR text and the standard draft of another paper written on their
own. Regarding the ASR draft, we asked further whether (transcription) errors in
the dictated version caused difficulty when writing the first draft and affected their
understanding of the dictated texts. Students responded to each quality question by
circling a number on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 representing a rating of Poor and
10 representing a rating of Very Good. It was necessary to ask whether remaining
transcription errors had caused difficulty when writing a first draft, because some
homonym errors (there for their and theyre) and punctuation omissions remained
in the texts. The order for production of the ASR and standard drafts (e.g., ASR first
or second) was counterbalanced across participants. The time period between the
writing of the ASR and standard drafts varied from student to student.
The 10 written drafts from both conditions were subjected to two forms of analysis. First, to obtain a measure of overall quality, the drafts were given to a team of
five expert raters who rated them anonymously along with writing samples from
new students being evaluated for placement in developmental writing courses. The
raters were told only that they would see some writing samples different from the
writing placement examination. They were not told in what order or under what
conditions these additional samples had been written. Three raters independently
rated each sample, and the average of their ratings yielded a score for each draft. The
ratings were modified holistic ratings. That is, raters assigned a total of 25 points to
each of four categories:organization, content, vocabulary, and language.3 The score
for each paper could range from 0 to 100 points (Albertini, Bochner, Cuneo, Hunt,
Nielsen, Seago, & Shannon, 1986).
Second, to obtain a measure of cohesion, two of the investigators rated the
strength of connection between sentences in the essays. We read each draft essay
paragraph by paragraph and independently assigned a value from 1 to 5 to the connection between the first and second sentence, the third and fourth sentence, and
so on. Arating of 1 indicated no apparent connection, 3 a weak connection, and 5
a very strong connection. We obtained a mean rating of text cohesion by assigning a rating to each pair of contiguous sentences in an essay, totaling the ratings
and dividing this total by the number of pairs. Inter-rater agreement was generally
high (the same numerical rating or a difference of one point), ranging from 90% to
100% across 9 of the 10 draft essays. Agreement on the first essay was 77%, and we
attribute this lower agreement to an initial lack of calibration between the raters.
RESULTS
Table8.1 displays the results of interviews during which the participants were asked
to rate the quality of their own written drafts and the ASR text. Remember that, in
the standard condition, students wrote the draft on their own, and in the ASR condition, they wrote their first draft using the text produced by ASR dictation. Although
the mean quality rating for the drafts written in the standard condition was 4.78, the
most frequent rating was a 4, indicating that students rated these as somewhat poor.
The mean rating of drafts written using ASR dictated texts was 6.65, indicating that
students thought these drafts were better in overall quality than the standard. Three
out of the 10 ratings were 6; 5 out of the 10 were higher than 6.
The mean rating of 5.85 for overall quality of the ASR text indicates that they
thought these were somewhat helpful. When we probed further and asked whether
transcription errors caused difficulty when writing the first draft, only 6 students
responded with a mean rating of 2.66 (0=Dont really bother me:10=Bother me a
lot; SD=1.49) indicating that, in general, the mistakes did not bother these students.
We asked for a rating of the extent to which transcription errors affected understanding of the dictated texts. Again only 6 students responded. The mean rating of 5.83
(0=Not at all; 10=Very much; SD=3.13) suggests that the errors caused some
difficulty in understanding the texts (but see qualitative comments, later).
The discrepancy in these ratings suggests that although students may have had
difficulty understanding text segments when there were ASR errors, this difficulty
did not hinder production of their written draft. Because they all had short deadlines, we presume that the recentness of producing the dictated text helped them
recall the meaning of the dictated texts if there were errors.
Table 8.2 shows the length and the objective ratings assigned to 5 pairs of
essays: the ASR and standard written drafts. Unfortunately, we were unable to
obtain copies of standard drafts from all 10 students. Again, by ASR draft, we
mean the first draft written from the ASR-generated text. When we compare the
length of the papers, we see that 4 out of the 5 students (Michael, Stephen, Vanessa,
and Karen) wrote longer drafts in the ASR condition. When we compare the holistic ratings of essay quality, we see that only Stephens ASR paper was judged to be
considerably better than the standard paper.
Table8.1 MEAN STANDARD RATINGS ON QUESTIONS ABOUT USE OF ASR
TO SUPPORT WRITING
Rating
Quality of standard written drafts
Quality of ASR written drafts
Quality of ASR dictated texts
SD
4.78
6.65
5.85
0.99
1.70
1.84
7
10
10
Note: Rating scale:1=Poor, 10=Very Good.
Table8.2 QUALITY OF DRAFT ESSAYS:OBJECTIVE RATINGS

Name
Condition
Essay Length
(totalwords)
Essay Quality
(Scale:1100)
Essay Cohesion
(Range:15)
Michael
Michael
ASR
Standard
873
413
55
53
2.91
2.54
Stephen
ASR
674
77
3.39
Stephen
Standard
619
59
2.84
Ray
ASR
928
79
2.93
Ray
Standard
1409
75
2.92
Vanessa
ASR
1713
61
2.94
Vanessa
Standard
1469
63
2.85
Karen
Karen
ASR
Standard
1742
1089
58
75
2.78
2.94
Under Essay Cohesion in Table8.2, we see that 3 out of 5 students wrote more
cohesive essays in the ASR condition, one student wrote texts with similar cohesion, and only one student (Karen) wrote a better text in the standard condition.
Coding of the responses to the end-of-term interview questions lead to several
interesting findings. In response to the question, Did the ASR text help you write a
draft? of the 6 students who responded, 5 students responded positively and one
negatively. Examples of responseare:
Student 1:Yes, it gave me like something more to write about it.
Student 3:Yeah, Ifelt it helped because it gets me thinking.
Student 5:I read the printout and it had a lot of ideas, so that helped me write a
rough draft of the essay. When Ilooked at the paper Id realize what
Iforgot to include and then Icould add that to my draft.
In response to questions about transcription errors (Did you find mistakes in the
text? What kind of mistakes? Did the mistakes affect your understanding of the text?),
4 out of 7 students said they found more than just typos in the text. Three said that
words in the texts were different from what they had signed or finger-spelled. One
said that the message in the text was less direct than the signed message. As for the
effect of the errors (or changes) in wording on their understanding, 3 out of 5 said
that the changes impeded understanding, one said they did not bother him, and
one said that the changes aided understanding.
DISCUSSION
At the outset of this study, we asked whether dictating a draft of an essay in

ASL would help students compose more fluently and write better essays. Results
of using a dictation procedure with 10 students in college-level writing courses

indicated that, in general, they liked the procedure, had some difficulty with the
errors in the ASR-produced text, but believed drafts written using an interpreter
and ASR were qualitatively better than those written without the procedure.
Overall the procedure elicited positive ratings from the participants. However,
several students noted that the logistics of completing the ASR session (it was
difficult to schedule an appointment and to dictate their thoughts in sign language) required more time than it normally took for them to write a rough draft
of an essay.
More specifically, we hypothesized that dictating a rough draft would help students generate longer texts and better organize and connect their ideas. Their ratings and comments indicate they generally believed this to be the case. Although
transcription and perceived translation errors clearly mitigated the students enthusiasm for the procedure, the results summarized in Table8.2 provide moderate support for this hypothesis. Unfortunately results on essay length, quality, and cohesion
are available for only 5 of the 10 students. However, they show that students tended
to write more in the ASR condition and produced texts of equal or greater quality and cohesion than in the standard condition. The fact that 4 out of 5 students
wrote longer drafts in the ASR condition suggests that they were able to generate
texts more fluently in this condition. That the ratings of essay quality were mixed
suggests that the expert raters and the students focused on different aspects of text
quality. Recall that the expert raters were instructed to focus equally on four aspects
of writing: organization, content, vocabulary, and language. In their end-of-term
interviews, the students said they had focused on content when writing their first
drafts from the ASR-generated text. This is consistent with the process-oriented
approach in their writing courses. Moreover, despite some surface level grammatical errors, the sentence-to-sentence cohesion was generally stronger in the drafts
written from dictated texts.
It should be noted, also, that topic selection might have played a role in writing quality. For Stephen and Karen, the large discrepancy between scores might be
attributed to level of engagement with the topic of the essay. For the ASR condition,
Stephen summarized a biographical sketch describing how, as a slave, Frederick
B.Douglas learned to read and write. His selection of detail showed his admiration of Douglas persistence and ingenuity. For the standard condition essay, he
wrote a definition essay on people referred to in the United States as Latinos or
Latinas. Even though he establishes a personal connection near the end of the
essay (There are a lot of Latinos in my neighborhood.), the whole is basically a
list of cultural characteristics on the one hand, and stereotypical perceptions of
Latin culture in the United States on the other. Given the fact that the writer is an
African-American student facing his own literacy challenges at college suggests a
higher level of engagement with the first topic.
Karen wrote an essay about gambling addiction under the ASR condition and
one on the causes and effects of binge drinking under the standard condition.
In the former, she catalogued popular types of gambling in the United States
and social and economic consequences of gambling addiction. In the latter, she
presented effects and causes of binge drinking. To enhance her discussion of
causes, she included original data. She asked peers on campus why they like to
drink and quoted their responses. The higher rating of this essay seems related
to her higher level of engagement in the topic. Both writers produced better
essays on topics that they valued and liked and this influenced the quality of
their products more than the use of technology or a new instructional strategy
(the ASL condition). Boscolo and Mason (2003) discuss the importance of
topic in relation to reading, and Boscolo (Chapter 3, this volume) relates this
variable to writing as well.
Two limitations of the study are related to the sample size and to the fact that
data were collected under naturalistic conditions. Because we wanted to use real
assignments from ongoing writing classes, we had to work as best we could with
students tight schedules in a 10-week quarter. All 10 participants were asked to
submit a copy of the first draft of an assignment written under normal conditions in
the same course during the same term. As mentioned previously, we were unable to
obtain 10 standard drafts from all 10 students. Normal conditions meant for us a
draft written without dictation. However, some of the standard drafts may have had
the benefit of peer or teacher feedback.
Replication of this study with a larger sample in both naturalistic and experimental settings might have lead to more definitive results. As several students commented, the procedure worked best when they prepared a mental outline ahead of
time for the ASR condition. Even with more training of the voice files and improved
software, transcripts from the ASR condition would need to be edited. For some of
the students, the procedure added too much time to the process of writing a college
essay. On the other hand, students who compose in ASL or in a mixture of ASL
and English might appreciate the opportunity to focus more on content and thus
produce longer and more coherent dictated drafts.
Finally, some would argue that a dictation-with-translation strategy belongs in
a beginning writing class, where students are introduced to various tools for composing fluently and efficiently. We would agree. However, this study suggests that a
procedure that allows even experienced writers to focus on higher-order processes
can lead to better results.
AUTHOR NOTE
This study was conducted as students took college writing courses. We thank the
instructors of these courses for their cooperation and support:Lorna Mittelman,
Rose Marie Toscano, Pam Conley, Linda Rubel. Maureen Barry, and Sybil Ishman.
We thank the raters of the NTID Writing Test for rating the essays used in this
study: Margaret Brophy, Kathleen Crandall, Susan Keenan, Eugene Lylak, and
Kathy Varone. We thank our expert sign-language interpreter, Aaron Gorelick.

Finally, we are grateful to the Provost of RIT for support of this project through a
Provosts Learning Innovations Grant.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to the first
author: John Albertini, NTID/RIT, 52 Lomb Memorial Drive, Rochester, NY
14623-5604; 585-475-6276 (V/TDD); jaancr@rit.edu.
NOTES
1. Akamatsu and Armour asked students to transcribe signed passages from short video clips
into a sign gloss notation and then turn this transcription into standard English. The passages were signed in English with mouth movement but no voice. Christie and colleagues
had students study videotaped models of ASL discourse and sign several drafts of their
own personal narrative. From the final draft, they produced a written version of the narrative in English.
2. This was accomplished by means of IBMs ViaVoice software engine (IBM, 2002), which
had been incorporated into the C-Print Pro software application for captioning (Stinson,
Elliot, & Francis, 2008). The interpreter used a dictation mask produced by Martel, Inc.
(not shown in Figure8.1), which housed the microphone in a cup that fit over the interpreters mouth, effectively minimizing background noise interference, as well as silencing
the dictation. As the student signed, the interpreter dictated a spoken English version of
the signed message continuously into the dictation mask, saying each word distinctly, at a
pace that kept up with the student.
3. Here, language was understood by the raters to include correct use of grammatical structures and punctuation, intelligible spelling, and clarity of reference and style.
REFERENCES
Akamatsu, C. T., & Armour, V. (1987). Developing written literacy in deaf children though
analyzing sign language, American Annals of the Deaf, 132(1), 4651.
Albertini, J.A., Bochner, J., Cuneo, C., Hunt, L., Nielsen, R., Seago, L., & Shannon, N. (1986).
Development of a writing test for deaf college students. Teaching English to Deaf and
Second-Language Students, 4, 511.
Albertini, J., & Schley, S. (2011). Writing:Characteristics, instruction, and assessment. In M.
Marschark & P. Spencer (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.). NewYork, NY:Oxford University Press.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale,
NJ:Erlbaum.
Biser, E., Rubel, L., & Toscano, R. (1998). Mediated texts:Aheuristic for academic writing.
Journal of Basic Writing, 17, 5672.
Boscolo, P., & Mason, L. (2003). Topic knowledge, text coherence, and interest:How they interact in learning from instructional texts. Journal of Experimental Education, 71, 126148.
Boscolo, P. (2014). Two conflicting metaphors for writing research and their implications
for writing instruction. In B. Arf, J. Dockrell, V. W.Berninger (Eds.). Writing development and writing instruction in children with hearing, speech and oral language difficulties.
NewYork, NY:Oxford University Press.
Christie, K., Wilkins, D. M., McDonald, B. H., Neuroth-Gimbrone, C. (1999). Get-tothe-point:Academic bilingualism and discourse in American Sign Language and written
English. In E. Winston (Ed.), Storytelling and conversation:Discourse in Deaf communities
(pp. 162177). Washington, DC:Gallaudet University Press.
Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students:Aframework for intervention. Harvard
Education Review, 56, 1836.
De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1997). Effects of dictation and advanced planning instruction on
the composing of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational
Faigley, L., Cherry, R., Jolliffe, D., & Skinner, A. (1985). Assessing writers knowledge and process
of composing. Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
Hayes, J. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing (127).
In M. Levy & S. Randall (Eds.), The Science of Writing:Theories, methods, individual differences, and explanations. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
IBM. (2002). ViaVoice for Windows. Retrieved September 13, 2002 from http://www-3.ibm.
com/software/speech/desktop/w10.html
Killingsworth, M.J. (1993). Product and process. Literacy and orality:An essay on composition and culture. College Composition and Communication, 44, 2639.
MacArthur, C.A., & Cavalier, A.R. (2004). Dictation and speech recognition technology as
test accommodations. Exceptional Children, 71(1), 4358.
Mayer, C., & Akamatsu, C.T. (2003). Bilingualism and literacy. In M. Marschark & P. Spencer
(Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education (pp. 136147).
NewYork, NY:Oxford University Press.
Mayer, C., & Wells, G. (1996). Can the Linguistic Interdependence Theory support a
bilingual-bicultural model of literacy education for deaf students? Journal of Deaf Studies
and Deaf Education, 1, 93107.
Perl, S. (1979). The composing processes of unskilled college writers. Research in the Teaching
of English, 13, 317336.
Reece, J., & Cumming, G. (1996). Evaluating speech-based composition methods:Planning,
dictation, and the listening word processor. In M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The Science
of Writing. Theories, Methods, Individual Differences, and Applications (pp. 361415).
Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Goelman, 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. NewYork, NY:Academic Press.
Schmitz, K., & Keenan, S. (2005). Evaluating deaf students writing fairly:Meaning over mode.
Teaching English in the Two Year College, 32, 370378.
Stinson, M. S., Elliot, L. B., & Francis, P. (2008). The C-Print system: Using captions to
support classroom communication access and learning by deaf and hard of hearing students. In C. Schlenker-Schulte & A. Weber (Eds.) Barrieren berwinden
Teilhabe ist mglich! Villingen-Schwenningen (pp. 102122). Villingen-Schwenningen,
Germany:Neckar-Verlag.
Suppalla, S., Wix, T., & McKee, C. (2001). Print as a primary source of English for deaf learners.
In J. Nichol & T. Langendoen (Eds.), One mind, two languages:Bilingual language processing (pp. 177190). Malden, MA:Blackwell.
Wetzel, K. (1997). Speech-recognizing computers:Awritten-communication tool for students
with learning disabilities? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 371380.
Children with Oral Language Difficulties
CHAPTER9
Examining Early Spelling

andWritingSkills
A Comparative Analysis of Kindergarteners with
Speech and Oral Language Impairments and Their
Typically Developing Peers
C YNTHI A S. PUR ANIK , STEPH ANIE AL OTAIBA ,
AND FEIFEI YE
BACKGROUND AND GOALS
Among the three Rs, writing is more neglected than reading or arithmetic in
the United States (National Commission on Writing, 2003); not surprisingly, the
majority of students in U.S.schools do not write well enough to meet grade-level
expectations (NAEP, 2007). However, the ability to write is imperative to function
in todays world, so writing difficulties are of concern to employers, educators, practitioners, and researchers alike. The present chapter addresses writing and spelling
performance of two groups of kindergarten children who might be particularly
susceptible to difficulties with written language, namely children with language
impairments (LI) and children with speech impairments (SI). Most research to
date examining the written language difficulties of children with LI have focused
on older children and we are not aware of a single study examining writing in children with SI. Thus, in this chapter, we report on the results of a study examining
the writing of English speaking kindergarten children with language and speech
impairments.
Literacy Difficulties of Children with Language Impairments
Accumulating evidence indicates that children with LI have reading problems and
are at risk for academic underachievement (Aram, Ekelman, & Nation, 1984; Aram
& Nation, 1980; Bishop & Adams, 1990; Bishop & Edmundson, 1987; Boudreau
& Hedberg, 1999; Catts, 1993; Catts & Kamhi, 1999; Magnusson & Naucler,
1990; Menyuk etal., 1991; Scarborough & Dobrich, 1990; Silva, 1980). Children
with LI perform more poorly compared to their typically developing (TD) peers
on measures of emergent reading prior to beginning formal reading instruction
(Boudreau & Hedberg, 1999; Gillam & Johnston, 1985). For example, Boudreau
and Hedberg reported differences between preschool children with LI and their
TD peers on measures of rhyme, letter names, and print concepts. These difficulties
continue as children progress through grade school as evidenced by the findings of
several studies that have followed children with a history of language impairments
and examined their reading skills in elementary school (e.g., Bishop & Adams,
1990; Catts, Fey, Tomblin, & Zhang, 2002). Catts (1993) compared the prevalence of second grade reading disabilities of 56 children with a preschool history of
speech-language impairments and of 30 typically developing children. His findings
confirmed that children with speech-language impairments had an increased risk
for reading disabilities.
Difficulties with reading are more pronounced for children with a persistent history of oral language impairments (Bishop & Adams, 1990; Bishop & Edmundson,
1987; Catts et al., 2002; Puranik, Petscher, Al Otaiba, Catts, & Lonigan, 2008).
In a large study of 1,991 students across first through third grades, Puranik, etal.
(2008), found that the oral reading fluency performance of students with LI was
significantly lower compared to their SI and TD peers, however, these problems
were more marked for children with persistent LI.
Compared to studies examining the reading difficulties of children with LI,
there are fewer studies examining the writing difficulties of this group of children; however, that gap appears to be steadily closing. Converging evidence suggests that children with LI have difficulty producing both narrative and expository
texts (Dockrell, Lindsay & Connelly, 2009; Fey, Catts, Proctor-Williams, Tomblin,
& Zhang, 2004; Gillam & Johnston, 1992; Gillam, McFadden, & van Kleeck,
1995; Liles, Duffy, Merritt, & Purcell, 1995; Mackie & Dockrell, 2004; Puranik,
Lombardino, & Altmann, 2007; Scott & Windsor, 2000; Windsor, Scott, & Street,
2000). Specifically, research shows that older children with LI use fewer words in
written discourse, produce shorter stories, make more syntactical errors, and show
relatively poor organization skills in their writing when compared to their TD peers.
Childrens knowledge of oral (listening and speaking) and written (reading
and writing) language develops concurrently (Berninger, 2000; Chaney, 1998;
Dickinson & Snow, 1987; Mason, 1980; Smith & Tager-Flusberg, 1982; Teale
Ea r ly W r i t i n g & Sp e ll i n g S k i ll s o f C h i l d r e n w i t h L I & w i t h SI [ 1 1 3 ]
& Sulzby, 1986). However, writing develops later (Vygotsky, 1978) and is thus
affected or facilitated by oral language (Shanahan, 2006). Hence, it is not surprising that elementary and middle school children with LI experience difficulties with
several aspects of writing in addition to their difficulties with oral language and
reading.
There is preliminary evidence to suggest that just as with reading development, writing trajectories might be established early. Cabell, Justice, Zucker, and
McGinity (2009) found significant differences in the name writing (one of the first
words children learn to write) abilities of preschool children with LI, and their typically developing peers. In another study, Puranik and Lonigan (2012) administered
measures of oral language, nonverbal cognition, emergent reading and writing to a
group of 293 preschool children. These children were then divided into four groups
based on their language and cognitive performancechildren with low cognition
and low oral language, children with low cognition and average oral language, children with average cognition and low oral language, and children with average cognition and average oral language. They found that as early as preschool, children
with weaker oral-language skills, lag behind their peers with stronger oral-language
skills in terms of their writing-related skills. The differences were not confined to
name writing alone, but also included letter writing and spelling. Apart from these
two studies, we were unable to find other studies examining the early writing abilities of children with oral language difficulties or weak oral-language skills.
Literacy Difficulties of Children with Speech Impairments
Another clinical group that might be susceptible to writing difficulties is children

with SI. Adiagnosis of SI is given when a child has problems with articulation (making sounds) or phonological processes (sound patterns). Children with articulation
disorders exhibit milder difficulties producing speech that generally involve a few
speech sounds. Common articulation disorders include substitution of /w/ for
/r/ such as wabbit for rabbit. In contrast, children with phonological disorders
are considered to have more pervasive difficulties with producing speech sounds.
Their difficulties are described by error patterns as opposed to being isolated to
single sounds. For example, children exhibiting an error pattern called fronting,
would substitute in their oral language, and conceivably in their spelling, all sounds
made in the back of the mouth like /k/ and /g/ for those made in the front of the
mouth like /t/ and /d/ (e.g., saying tup for cup or das for gas) (American
Speech-Language-Hearing Association, n.d.).
Unlike research documenting the literacy difficulties of children with LI, examinations of the relationship between reading and speech impairments have resulted
in contradictory findings. Some investigations have led to the conclusion that children with SI are at risk for later reading failure (Bird, Bishop, & Freeman, 1995;
Carroll & Snowling, 2004; Gillon, 2005; Larrivee & Catts, 1999; Leito & Fletcher,
[ 1 1 4 ] Part II: Impact of Oral Language Problems on Written Text
2004; Puranik et al., 2008), whereas other investigations have reported that the
reading abilities of children with SI are not significantly different from that of children without SI (Bernhardt & Major, 2005; Hesketh, 2004; Leito, Hogben, &
Fletcher, 1997; Nathan, Stackhouse, Goulandris, & Snowling, 2004). Of note is the
fact that investigations examining the literacy difficulties of children with SI have
been confined to reading and reading-related tasks.
However, children with SI may have writing difficulties. They may have difficulty
learning letter-sound correspondences, as a result of their articulation difficulties or
deficiencies in phonological processes, or they may have difficulties with phonological memory and insufficient phonological representations (Bird etal., 1995; Bishop
& Adams, 1990), which, in turn, may lead to spelling difficulties. And spelling
impedes the quantity and quality of written composition (e.g., Aram 2005; Graham,
Berninger, Abbott, Abbott, & Whitaker, 1997). Difficulty with phonological memory could also mean difficulty holding words, ideas, or sentences long enough in
memory before it can be translated to writing. Therefore, in addition to examining
the writing skills of children with LI, we also examined writing in children with SI.
Our primary purpose was to compare the early spelling, handwriting, and writing skills for children with a diagnosis of LI and SI with those of their TD peers
receiving similar classroom instruction. We were interested in describing individual
differences in performance and also in learning whether our clinical groups would
manifest differences at this very early stage of writing. Converging evidence indicates the importance of transcription skills (handwriting fluency and spelling)
for translating thoughts and ideas into written language, especially with beginning
writers (e.g., Berninger, Cartwright, Yates, Swanson, & Abbott, 1994; Berninger,
Whitaker, Feng, Swanson, & Abbott, 1996; Berninger, Yates, Cartwright, Rutberg,
Remy, & Abbot, 1992, De La Paz & Graham, 1995; Graham, etal., 1997; Puranik &
Al Otaiba, 2014). We thus examined handwriting fluency and spelling. In addition,
we examined writing at the sentence and discourse level, because writing requires
the processing, generation, and sequencing of increasingly larger units of written
languagefrom letters in words, to words in sentences, to sentences in paragraphs
(Arf & Boscolo, 2006; Berninger, Nielsen, Abbott, Wijsman, & Raskind, 2008;
Dockrell, Lindsay, Connelly, & Mackie, 2007).
METHOD
Data for this study was taken from a larger longitudinal study examining the
effects of individualizing reading instruction within 14 public schools in a
moderate-sized city in north Florida. In this chapter, we focused on data for
children with SI and LI. These schools served students from a diverse range of
socioeconomic status; children qualifying for free and reduced lunch (a proxy
for socioeconomic status in the United States) at these participating schools
ranged from 8.2% to 92.6%. The schools had full-day kindergarten programs,
which included 90 minutes of core reading and language arts instruction using
Open Court (Bereiter et al., 2002). The Open Court curriculum provides systematic and explicit instruction in phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary,
and reading comprehension. Spelling and writing were not the focus of this curriculum, nor did teachers systematically use any supplemental spelling and writing programs.
Participants
Participants for the present study included a total of 234 kindergarten children
from 21 teachers, ranging from 1 to 5 teachers per school. Of this group, 16 children had a current school diagnosis of LI and 12 children had a diagnosis of SI.
The number of children in the two clinical groups is consistent with average prevalence rates reported for children with LI and SI in the United States (e.g., Tomblin,
Records, Buckwalter, Zhang, Smith, OBrien, 1997). To identify students needing
speech or language services, the general practice in U.S.schools is to show a discrepancy between the childs chronological age and their speech (for children with
SI) or language (for children with LI) performance. These 28 children were being
served in mainstream classrooms and received speech and/or language therapy one
to three times per week depending on their Individualized Education Plans (IEPs).
Students are generally taken out of their classrooms for half-hour sessions to receive
these speech and language services.
Of the remaining 206 participants, 15 were dropped from this analysis because
they had current IEPs for intellectual disabilities, visual impairments, and so forth.
This resulted in a group of 191 children who formed the TD group who were from
the same classes as the clinical groups and receiving similar instruction. Table 9.1
(p. 120) includes demographic information for the two clinical groups (LI and SI)
and their TD peers.
Procedure
The assessment protocol for the larger study included a comprehensive battery of
cognitive, oral language, and reading assessments that took place in the Fall and/
or Spring of the school year. These assessments were individually administered by
trained Research Assistants (RAs). Writing measures were collected in the Spring
(or the end) of the kindergarten year and group administered in one session by
trained RAs. The classroom teachers were present during the administrations and
assisted the RAs as needed.
Measures
Written expression. For this task, the RAs provided a writing prompt. The RAs
said, You have been in kindergarten for almost a whole year. Today we are going to write
about kindergarten. Lets think about what you enjoyed about being in kindergarten.
What did you learn in school? Did anything special happen to you in kindergarten?
Students were given 15 minutes to complete the task. Soon after administering
the writing task, the RAs read all the writing samples to ensure that they could
be understood. When a word was not understood because of illegible writing or
because a word was spelled incorrectly, the RAs asked the children to read their
samples and wrote the word they intended to write below the incorrect spelling or
illegible word.
The writing samples were coded to calculate three variables to assess writing
productivity at the discourse and sentence levels:(1)total number of words written (TNW), (2)number of ideas expressed (Ideas), and (3)number of sentences
(Sentences). TNW was the number of words produced in writing by the subject. It
has been widely used by researchers when measuring productivity in writing (e.g.,
Berman & Verhoevan, 2002; Houck & Billingsley, 1989; Mackie & Dockrell, 2004;
Nelson, Bahr, & Van Meter, 2004; Nelson & Van Meter, 2002; Puranik, etal., 2007;
Scott & Windsor, 2000; Wagner etal., 2011)and has been shown to be an excellent
predictor of writing quality (e.g., Scott, 2005).
Ideas were calculated to examine the number of unique propositions/points
that children were able to express in writing. Given that kindergarten children are
beginning writers, their compositions were simple and generally included a list
of reasons that they liked kindergarten or a list of things they did in kindergarten.
Hence, we calculated an idea as the number of things/reasons the child provided
about what they did or liked in kindergarten. It generally included a subject and
a predicate (e.g., I like kindergarten [1 idea] because we get to go to art [1 idea].
Ilike kindergarten). However, children were also given points when their ideas
had a common subject and were joined by conjunctions (e.g., And we get to go
to housekeeping [1 idea] and eat snacks [1 idea].). Sometimes children repeated
themselves; as in the case of I like kindergarten in the preceding example. These
repetitions were not counted as an idea. Ideas that did not pertain to the prompt
(e.g., I like sandstorms) were also not counted because we attempted to count
only the number of unique propositions children were able to express that pertained to the prompt.
Number of sentences was calculated as the sentence level measure. Frequently,
children this age omit punctuations. In those cases, coders made decisions
about what constituted a sentence. A sentence was defined as a group of words
that expresses a complete thought, feeling, or idea and contained an explicit
or implied subject and a predicate containing a verb. For example one child
wrote:Kindergarten is fun because Iam good Ido not get into trouble that is why
Ilike kindergarten. Although the child wrote this sentence without any punctuation, it was coded as two sentences:(1)Kindergarten is fun because Iam good, and
(2)Ido not get into trouble that is why Ilike kindergarten. Since we were attempting to capture productivity in writing, children were not penalized for grammatical
errors; however, only complete sentences were counted.
Spelling. To assess students ability to spell single words, we examined their
performance on a list of 14 words used in prior literacy studies (e.g., Al Otaiba
et al., 2010; Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1989; Byrne, et al., 2006; Puranik & Al
Otaiba, 2012), which included decodable words (e.g., dog, man, plug, limp, tree,
went), sight (e.g., one, said, blue, come), and pseudowords (e.g., ig, sut, frot, yilt).
The RA read each word, read a sentence with the word, and then repeated the
spelling word (e.g., Dog. I took my dog to the park. Dog.). The pseudowords
were presented without a sentence but were repeated three times each (e.g., ig,
ig, ig).
Informed by prior studies, spelling was scored using a developmental scoring system because it captures sophistication and variability in childrens spelling
attempts better than a dichotomous scoring system (e.g., Al Otaiba, et al; 2010;
Treiman & Bourassa, 2000; Treiman, Kessler, & Bourassa, 2001; Ritchey, Coker,
& McCraw, 2010). During the learning-to-write phase as in kindergarten, children
attempt to spell words by first randomly writing letters, then marking the initial
consonant, followed by marking final consonants drawing on their increasing
knowledge of letter-sound relationships (see Treiman, Kessler, & Bourassa, 2001).
Developmentally, vowels are marked last (Core, Puranik, & Apel, 2011). Hence, we
used a system in which children are given more points for representing phonological and orthographic features of the target word as opposed to coding words as simply correct or incorrect. The possible scores ranged from 0 (lowest) to 6 (highest).1
Childrens scores on the 14 target spelling words were aggregated to form a single
spelling score for a maximum score of 84.
Handwriting fluency. Children were asked to write all the letters of the alphabet in order, using lower case letters in 1 minute (Christensen, 2009; Hudson, Lane,
& Mercer, 2005; Wagner etal., 2011). This task was used to measure how well children access, retrieve, and write letter forms automatically. Because of the age of the
participants in this study, we modified the scoring system to account for the developmental level of the children. Childrens responses were scored as 0 if a letter was
missing, incorrect, or not recognizable; scored as 0.5 if the letter was recognizable
but poorly formed or reversed; scored as 1 if the letter was well formed and recognizable. The order of the alphabet sequence was also taken into consideration,
that is, letters were counted as incorrect if they were written out of order. Students
scores on the individual letters were aggregated to form a single handwriting fluency score with a maximum score of 26.
Cognitive measures. Two subtests of the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Scale
(K-BIT-2; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2001) were administered to measure verbal and
nonverbal intelligence. Standard scores are reported. For the Matrices subtest, a
student looked at six pictures to provide answers to an analogy; for example, car
goes with road; boat goes with _______ (ocean). For the Verbal Knowledge subtest,
students look at a series of six pictures and when asked a question are required to
point to the correct picture. The average reported reliability is .90.
Oral language. The Picture Vocabulary subtest of the Woodcock Johnson,
Third Edition (WJ-III; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001) was used to assess
expressive word knowledge. In this subtest, students name pictured objects that
increase in difficulty. The WJ-III is a widely used, validated, and reliable assessment
with a median reliability of .77. Standard scores are reported. Additionally, two subtests of the Test of Language Development-Primary: Third Edition (TOLD-P:3;
Newcomer & Hammill, 1997) were used to measure oral language: the Sentence
Imitation (SI) and the Grammatic Completion (GC) subtest. The TOLD-P:3 was
designed to be administered to children between 4;0 and 8;11 years of age and can
be used to identify children who are significantly below their peers in language proficiency and can determine childrens specific strengths and weaknesses in language
skills. The Sentence Imitation (SI) subtest assesses a childs familiarity with grammatical markers and word order. The Grammatic Completion (GC) measures the
production of language by testing the childs ability to use various English morphological forms. Average reliability for the both subtests across all age groups is .90.
Reliability
For the handwriting and spelling measures, inter-scorer agreement was established
through a four-step process, directed by the first author, which included first creating a scoring rubric for the two measures. Second, the RAs were trained to use the
rubric with a small subset of children. Once they reached 100% agreement, then
each individually scored the writing samples. Third, 15% of the entire data set was
randomly selected to calculate inter-rater reliability. Writing samples were scored in
the same manner, except 20% of the entire data set was randomly selected to calculate inter-rater reliability. Inter-rater reliability was 88%, 85%, and 86% for TNW,
ideas, and sentences respectively. For spelling, inter-rater reliability was 94.8% and
Cohens kappa was .92. For the handwriting fluency measure, inter-rater reliability
was 99% and Cohens kappa was .98. All discrepancies in scoring across the entire
sample were resolved through discussion and a final score was entered following
consensus.
RESULTS
Table9.1 contains the demographic information for the three groups. There were
statistically significant differences between the groups for age, F(2, 216) = 4.07,
Table9.1 DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION FOR LI (n=16), SI (n=12),

AND TD PEERS (n=191)
LI
SI
TD
Age at testing (yrs, mns)

Age at testing (yrs, mns)
Fall (M/SD)
Spring (M/SD)
5.5 (.09)
6.13 (.44)
5.2 (.11)
6.04 (.42)
5.2 (.02)
5.82 (.47)
% free and reduced lunch
Yes/No
15/1
11/1
111/80
Race/Ethnicity
White
65
14
12
123
African American
Gender
Asian
Male
Female
14
2
11
1
99
92
p < .05; the LI group was older than the TD group. There were also statistically
significantly differences between the LI, SI and TD group for gender, Pearsons
2(2)=13.99, p < .001. The two clinical groups had a higher proportion of males
compared to the TD group. This is in keeping with the generally higher proportion
of males compared to females with speech and language impairments. No statistically significant differences were noted between the SI and TD group and between
the SI and LI group on other measures. As can also be seen in Table9.1, a very
high percentage of the children in the two clinical groups received free and reduced
lunch (FARL). In fact, only one student each in the LI and SI group was not from
a low socioeconomic status background. Given that we did not have adequate subjects in the two clinical groups who were not on FARL to examine interactions, the
two students were removed from the analysis resulting in a LI group of 15 children
and an SI group of 11 children. To ensure group comparability, TD subjects from
relatively higher socioeconomic status (those not on FARL) were also removed
from the analysis when examining group differences on reading and writing measures. This resulted in a TD comparison group of 111 subjects on FARL.
Group comparisons were conducted using analysis of variance (ANOVA)
and using Scheff for post hoc comparisons to account for unequal group sizes.
However, for three of our outcome variables (TOLD_GC, TNW, and Ideas), the
assumption of homogeneity of variance was not satisfied. For those three variables,
ANOVA was conducted using Welchs F statistic and post hoc comparisons were
conducted using Games-Howell to account for unequal group variances and sizes.
Performance on the cognitive and oral language measures for the LI, SI, and TD
groups are presented in Table 9.2 and performance on the writing measures are
presented in Table 9.3. Performance differences were noted between the LI and TD
groups on the Matrices (nonverbal) and Verbal Knowledge (verbal) subtest of the
KBIT, and the vocabulary and oral language measures with the LI group showing
significantly poorer performance compared to the TD children. There were no differences on any of the cognitive and oral language measures between the SI and TD
Table9.2 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR COGNITIVE AND ORAL

LANGUAGE MEASURES FOR LI, SI, AND TD GROUPS ON FARL
TD (n=111) F for 3-group contrast
LI (n=15)
SI (n=11)
SD
SD
SD
KBIT (nonverbal)
KBIT (verbal)
83.60
76.60
13.05
13.26
86.55
82.64
11.97
12.85
91.71
88.55
11.89
13.63
3.61* (LI<TD)
5.71** (LI<TD)
Picture Vocabulary
86.47
6.99
94.18
8.86
98.26
8.67
13.16*** ((LI<TD)
3.87
4.73
2.48
1.98
6.08
7.36
3.07
1.75
8.07
7.70
2.73
2.78
17.31*** (LI<TD)
13.05*** (LI<TD; LI<SI)
TOLD_SI
TOLD_GC
Note: Differences significant at *p < .05, ***p < .001. FARL = Free and reduced lunch. KBIT (nonverbal) = Kaufman
Brief Intelligence Scale-2: Matrices; KBIT (verbal) = Kaufman Brief Intelligence Scale-2: Verbal Knowledge;
Picture Vocabulary = Woodcock Johnson, Third Edition (WJ-III): Picture Vocabulary; TOLD_SI/TOLD_GC =
Test of Language Development: Third Edition: Sentence Imitation/Grammatic Completion. For KBIT and Picture
Vocabulary-standard score mean is 100, SD 15; for TOLD standard score mean is 10, SD 3.
Table9.3 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR WRITING MEASURES

FOR LI, SI, AND TD GROUPS ON FARL
Measures
SI (n=11)
SD
SD
SD
Spelling
Decodable
30.50
11.92
16.71
6.81
43.0
13.89
18.22
6.70
46.64
17.64
19.53
7.62
4.42** (LI<TD)
4.31* (LI<TD)
Sight
11.07
6.37
16.67
8.54
16.44
7.18
3.50* (LI<TD)
7.50
5.21
12.44
5.34
12.56
6.69
3.8** (LI<TD)
7.17
4.42
8.32
4.49
10.27
6.39
2.05
.38
.81
1.75
2.45
2.7
3.08
3.3* (LI<TD)
1.73
.33
4.15
.82
8.36
1.73
13.38
2.53
11.66
2.62
Pseudoword
Handwriting
fluency
Sentences
TNW
Ideas
TD (n=111)
F for 3-group contrasts
LI (n=15)
13.11 17.94*** (LI<TD)

2.78 22.52*** (LI<TD)
Note:Difference between LI and TD groups significant for all writing measures at * p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
FARL=Free and reduced lunch; TNW=Total number of words.
group. Although the children with SI had higher mean scores on the oral language
and cognitive measures compared to their LI peers, the differences between the two
groups was statistically significant only for the Grammatic Completion subtest of
the TOLD-P:3 (Newcomer & Hammill, 1997).
Differences between the LI and TD group were significant for most of the writing measures, with the LI children showing poorer performance compared to the
TD children. In particular, differences between the LI and TD group were significant for spelling, number of sentences, ideas, and TNW (ps <.05) but not for the
handwriting fluency measure. Children with LI had difficulty spelling all types of
words:decodable, sight, and nonsense words. They also had difficulty formulating
sentences, generating ideas, and demonstrated reduced productivity as measured

by TNW compared to their TD peers.
Compared to the LI children, children with SI showed better performance on
writing measures. Whereas children with SI had lower mean scores for writing measures compared to the TD children, these differences were not statistically significant. The SI children had higher scores on all writing measures compared to the LI
children, but once again these differences were also not statistically significant (see
Table9.3).
DISCUSSION
The primary purpose of this study was to examine writing in children with LI and
SI, two groups of children that might be susceptible to difficulties with written language. The results of this study add to the research regarding writing underachievement of children with LI, corroborating that these differences manifest very early
in childrens instructional experiences. Moreover, the results provide further evidence of a relationship between the development of oral language impairments and
writing difficulties. Children with LI showed poorer performance on spelling and
written productivity compared to their classmates receiving similar instruction.
Children with SI also showed marginally poorer performance on handwriting fluency, spelling, and TNW compared to their classmates, but these differences were
not statistically significant.
Our results regarding the writing difficulties of children with LI are analogous
to the reading difficulties faced by this group of children relative to peers with SI
and relative to their TD peers (e.g., Catts etal., 2002; Puranik etal., 2008). It is evident that students with LI not only struggle with reading as demonstrated by previous research, but also with writing beginning as early as kindergarten. Our results
corroborate the findings of Cabell etal. (2009) and Puranik and Lonigan (2012)
showing that writing deficits for children with LI surface very early.
Of the two transcription skills (handwriting fluency and spelling) examined,
children with LI showed statistically poorer performance only on the spelling measure compared to their TD peers (see Table 9.3). Their difficulties with spelling
included all types of words-sight, decodable, and nonsense words. Generalized
problems with spelling despite age appropriate handwriting skills at this early stage
of writing development might be a marker for a more general problem with written language processing. Difficulty with a transcription skill such as spelling would
mean fewer resources available to devote to higher order writing skills such as generating text, planning, and revising (McCutchen, 1996). As it turns out, our results
indicate that children with LI had difficulty generating text when compared to their
TD classmates. They wrote fewer words and sentences and expressed fewer ideas
in their written output. This is consistent with the results of investigations showing
that older children with language impairment use fewer words in written discourse,
produce shorter stories, and have difficulty with text generation when compared
to age-matched controls (Bishop & Clarkson, 2003; Dockrell & Lindsay, 2000;
Fey etal., 2004; Mackie & Dockrell, 2004; Puranik etal., 2007; Scott & Windsor,
2000). Collectively, these findings regarding writing underachievement in children
with LI indicate that writing trajectories might be established earlier than previously documented.
On average, a TD kindergarten child from a low socioeconomic status background wrote approximately 12 words. In contrast, the average words written by
a child with LI was less than 2.Furthermore, children with LI on average were not
able to produce a single idea or a complete sentence compared to their TD peers
who were able to produce on average three ideas and over two complete sentences
in their written output. The LI childrens performance on sentences is particularly
troublesome since we did not consider grammaticality of sentences.
Recently in the United States, led by the Council of Chief State School Officers
(CCSSO) and the National Governors Association (NGA), the Common Core
State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy was released with the goal of
providing consistent and appropriate benchmarks for all students. The Standards
set expectations that children in kindergarten are expected to produce complete
sentences in writing and to write about experiences, stories, people, objects, or
events. In the present study, writing performance of children with LI was far below
these new kindergarten grade-level expectations and is of much concern because
they will surely not be prepared to meet writing demands in first grade. Additionally,
research indicates that children who are poor writers in first grade are highly likely
to remain poor writers in fourth grade ( Juel, 1988); as with reading, it appears that
the seeds of success or failure in writing are also sown early.
Similar to their LI peers, children with SI had lower mean scores on all writing measures compared to the TD peers receiving similar instruction, although
the differences were not significant. These findings must be treated with caution
and not taken to mean that children with SI do not have difficulties with writing.
It is likely that we may not have had enough power to detect differences given
our small sample size. Second, large variability was noted in the writing scores.
Thus, it is plausible that some children with SI, perhaps the more severe cases,
have difficulty writing. Aqualitative examination to figure out which students
with SI struggled with writing would be an excellent avenue for future research.
Our results must also not be taken to mean that children with SI will not develop
writing difficulties later. It is possible that, unlike the children with LI, difficulties
with writing for the SI children may surface later. Stronger oral language skills of
the SI group (compared to the LI group) may act as a moderating factor, at least
during these early years when the demands of writing are at a minimum. Perhaps
at this early stage, their difficulties with letter-sound correspondences or deficiencies in phonological processing do not hinder their ability to spell simple
CVC words, but could become an issue when they are required to spell more
complex multisyllabic words. Alternatively, their difficulties with phonological
memory or insufficient phonological representations, which might present difficulties with holding words, ideas, or sentences in memory for writing, may
become problematic when the demands on writing increase at later grades. We
hope to extend these findings in our future studies as we longitudinally follow
and assess not only these children, but also a second cohort of kindergarteners.
Hopefully our planned longitudinal studies of these children and of a second
cohort of children will shed light on this issue.
CONCLUSION
The pervasiveness of literacy difficulties as documented in reading has led to

the focus on early intervention. Our results underscore the importance of taking a similar preventative approach to addressing writing difficulties in children with LI from a very young age to hopefully prevent a Matthew Effect
(Stanovich, 1986). Most importantly, research has indicated that early literacy
difficulties are more likely to persist over time if timely intervention is not
provided (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997; Juel, 1988). In fact, reading trajectories are fairly stable by third grade particularly for children with persistent
speech and language deficits (Catts et al., 2002; Puranik, et al., 2008). Similar
to the approach of prevention of reading difficulties, it is important to identify writing problems early in high-risk populations such as children with LI
and also possibly SI. Providing early intervention may result in greater success
before these deficits become stable or interfere with the acquisition of other
writing skills. Research indicates that reading interventions conducted early
in the kindergarten year for children with poor oral language skills results in
better outcomes than the same interventions conducted later in the kindergarten year (OConnor, Bocian, Beebe-Frankenberger, & Linklater, 2010).
Similarly, spelling and writing interventions targeted early may result in better
outcomes compared to interventions that begin later. Thus, to improve childrens academic readiness, classroom teachers, speech-language pathologists,
and educators need to target those specific early writing skills (in addition to
early reading skills), particularly for children at risk. Intervention goals for
children with LI may need to address written language deficits in addition to
oral language impairments. Readers are urged to refer to chapter 20 by Nelson
on linking assessment results to intervention.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Support for carrying out this research was provided in part by grant P50 HD052120
from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The
opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the
funding agency.
NOTE
1. Scores were awarded as follows:0- no response or a random string of letters; 1- a single
phonetically related letter (e.g., for dog student wrote an o or a g); 2- a correct first letter
followed by other unrelated letters (e.g., dib or didl); 3- wrote more than one phoneme
that was phonetically correct (e.g., do); 4- all letters represented and phonetically correct
(e.g., dawg); 5- all letters represented and phonetically correct, and the student made an
attempt to mark a long vowel (e.g., blew or bloo for blue); only two words in the list, blue
and tree had long vowels; 6- word spelled correctly (e.g., dog).
REFERENCES
Al Otaiba, S., Puranik, C., Rouby, A., Greulich, L., Sidler, J., & Lee, J. (2010). Predicting kindergartners end of year spelling ability from their reading, alphabetic, vocabulary, and phonological
awareness skills, and prior literacy experiences. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 171183.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.). Speech sound disorders:Articulation
and phonological processes. Retrieved May 2011 from http://www.asha.org/public/
speech/disorders/SpeechSoundDisorders.htm
Aram, D.M. (2005). Continuity in childrens literacy achievements:Alongitudinal perspective
from kindergarten to school. First Language, 25, 259289.
Aram, D. M., Ekelman, B. L., & Nation, J. E. (1984). Preschoolers with language disorders:10years later. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 27, 232244.
Aram, D.M., & Nation, J.E. (1980). Preschool language disorders and subsequent language
and academic difficulties. Journal of Communication Disorders, 13, 159170.
Arf, B., & Boscolo, P. (2006). Causal coherence in deaf and hearing students written narratives. Discourse Processes, 42, 271300.
Bereiter, C., Brown, A., Campione, J., Carruthers, I., Case, R., Hirshberg, J., etal. (2002). Open
Court Reading. Columbus, OH:SRA McGraw-Hill.
Berman, R., & Verhoevan, L. (2002). Cross-linguistic perspectives on the development of
text-production abilities. Written Language and Literacy, 5, 143.
Bernhardt, B., & Major, E. (2005). Speech, language and literacy skills 3years later:Afollow-up
study of early phonological and metaphonological intervention. International Journal of
Language and Communication Disorders, 40, 127.
Berninger, V.W. (2000). Development of language by hand and its connections with language
by ear, mouth, and eye. Topics in Language Disorders, 20, 6584.
Berninger, V.W., Cartwright, A., Yates, C., Swanson, H.L., & Abbott, R. (1994). Developmental
skills related to writing and reading acquisition in the intermediate grades:Shared and
unique variance. Reading and Writing:An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, 161196.
Berninger, V., Nielsen, K., Abbott, R., Wijsman, E., & Raskind, W. (2008). Writing problems
in developmental dyslexia: Under-recognized and under-treated. Journal of School
Berninger, V.W., Whitaker, D., Feng, Y., Swanson, H.L., & Abbott, R. (1996). Assessment of
planning, translating, and revising in junior high writers. Journal of School Psychology,
34, 2352.
Berninger, V.W., Yates, C., Cartwright, A., Rutberg, J., Remy, E., & Abbot, R. (1992). Lower-level
developmental skills in beginning writing. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 4, 257280.
Bird, J., Bishop, D.V. M., & Freeman, N.H. (1995). Phonological awareness and literacy development in children with expressive phonological impairments. Journal of Speech and
Bishop, D.V. M., & Adams, C. (1990). A prospective study of the relationship between specific
language impairment, phonological disorders and reading retardation. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 31, 10271050.
Bishop, D. V. M., & Edmundson, A. (1987). Language-impaired 4-year-olds: Distinguishing
transient from persistent impairment. Journal of speech and hearing disorders, 52, 156173.
Bishop, D.V. M., & Clarkson, B. (2003). Written language as a window into residual language
deficits:Astudy of children with persistent and residual speech and language impairments. Cortex, 39, 215237.
Boudreau, D., & Hedberg, N. (1999). A comparison of early literacy skills in children with
specific language impairment and their typically developing peers. American Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology, 8, 249260.
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1989). Phonemic awareness and letter knowledge in the
childs acquisition of the alphabetic principle. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81,
313321.
Byrne, B., Olson, R., Samuelsson, S., Wadsworth, S., Corley, R., DeFries, J., & Wilcutt, E.G.
(2006). Genetic and environment influences on early literacy. Journal of Research in
Reading, 29, 3349.
Cabell, R., Justice, L., Zucker, T., & McGinty, A. (2009). Emergent name-writing abilities
of preschool-age children with language impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools, 40, 5366.
Carroll, J. M., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Language and phonological skills in children at
high-risk of reading difficulties. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 631640.
Catts, H.W. (1993). The relationship between speech-language and reading disabilities. Journal
of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 948958.
Catts, H.W., Fey, M.E., Tomblin, J.B., & Zhang, X. (2002). A longitudinal investigation of
reading outcomes in children with language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research, 45, 11421157.
Catts, H. W., & Kamhi, A. G. (Eds.). (1999). Language and reading disabilities. Needham
Heights, MA:Allyn & Bacon.
Chaney, C. (1998). Preschool language and metalinguistic skills are links to reading success.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 443446.
Christensen, C. (2009). The critical role handwriting plays in the ability to produce high-quality
written text. In R. Beard, J. Riley, D. Myhill & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The SAGE handbook
of writing development (pp. 284299). Thousand Oaks, CA:SAGE Publications.
Core, C., Puranik, C., & Apel, K. ( July, 2011). Vowel representation in the spelling of preschool
children. Interactive paper presented at the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading
Annual Conference, St. Petersburg, FL.
Cunningham, A.E., & Stanovich, K.E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to
reading experience and ability 10years later. Developmental Psychology, 33, 934945.
De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1995). Dictation:Applications to writing for students with learning disabilities. In T. Scruggs & M. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 9, pp. 227247). Greenwich, CT:JAI.
Dickinson, D.K., & Snow, C.E. (1987). Interrelationships among prereading and oral language
skills in kindergartners from two social classes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 2,
125.
Dockrell, J.E., & Lindsay, G. (2000). Meeting the needs of children with specific speech and
language difficulties. European Journal for Special Needs Education, 15, 2441.
Dockrell, J., Lindsay, G., & Connelly, V. (2009). The impact of specific language impairment on
adolescents written text. Exceptional Children, 75(4), 427446.
Dockrell, J., Lindsay, G., Connelly, V., & Mackie, C. (2007). Constraints in the production of
written texts of children with specific language impairments. Exceptional Children, 73,
147164.
Fey, M., Catts, H., Proctor-Williams, K., Tomblin, B., & Zhang, X. (2004). Oral and written story composition skills of children with language impairment. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 13011318.
Gillam, R.B., & Johnston, J.R. (1985). Development of print awareness in language-disordered
preschoolers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28, 521526.
Gillam, R., & Johnston, J. (1992). Spoken and written language relationships in language/
learning-impaired and normally achieving school-age children. Journal of Speech and
Gillam, R., McFadden, T.U., & van Kleeck, A. (1995). Improving narrative abilities:Whole
language and language skills approaches. In M. E. Fey, J. Windsor, & S. F. Warren
(Eds.), Language intervention: Preschool through the elementary years (pp. 145182).
Baltimore:Brookes.
Gillon, G. (2005). Facilitating phoneme awareness development in 3- and 4-year-old children
with speech impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 308324.
Graham, S., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Abbott, S., & Whitaker, D. (1997). Role of mechanics in
composing of elementary school students:Anew methodological approach. Journal of
Hesketh, A. (2004). Early literacy achievement of children with speech problems. International
Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 39, 453468.
Houck, C. S., & Billingsley, B. S. (1989). Written expression of students with and without
learning disabilities:Differences across the grades. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22,
561572.
Hudson, R., Lane, H., & Mercer, C. (2005). Writing prompts:The role of various priming conditions on the compositional fluency of developing writers. Reading and Writing, 18(6),
473495.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first
through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437447.
Kaufman, A., & Kaufman, N. (2001). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, Second Edition. Circle
Pines, MN:AGS Publishing.
Kessler, B., & Treiman, R. (2001). Relationships between sounds and letters in English monosyllables. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(4), 592617.
Larrivee, L.S., & Catts, H.W. (1999). Early reading achievement in children with expressive
phonological disorders. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 8, 118128.
Leito, S., & Fletcher, J. (2004). Literacy outcomes for students with speech impairment:long-term follow-up. International Journal of Language Communication Disorders,
39, 245256.
Leito, S., Hogben, J., & Fletcher, J. (1997). Phonological processing skills in speech and language impaired children. European Journal of Disorders of Communication, 32, 91113.
Liles, B.Z., Duffy, R.J., Merritt, D.D., & Purcell, S.L. (1995). Measurement of narrative discourse ability in children with language disorders. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,
38, 415425.
Mackie, C., & Dockrell, J.E. (2004). The nature of written language deficits in children with
SLI. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 14691483.
Magnusson, E., & Naucler, K. (1990). Reading and spelling in language disordered children
linguistic and metalinguistic prerequisites: Report on a longitudinal study. Clinical
Linguistics and Phonetics, 4, 4961.
Mason, J. (1980). When children begin to read:An exploration of four year old childrens letter
and word reading competencies. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 203227.
McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition.
Educational Psychology Review, 8, 299325.
Menyuk, P., Chesnick, M., Liebergott, J. W., Korngold, B., DAgnostino, R., & Belanger, A.
(1991). Predicting reading problems in at-risk children. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research, 34, 893903.
Nathan, L., Stackhouse, J., Goulandris, N., Snowling, M.J. (2004). The development of early
literacy skills among children with speech difficulties. Journal of Speech, Language, and
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2007). The nations report card. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retreived from: http://nationsreportcard.gov/
writing_2007/w0001.asp
National Commission on Writing for Americas Families, Schools, and Colleges. (2003, April).
The neglected R: The need for a writing revolution. New York, NY: College Entrance
Examination Board. Retrieved from: http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/writingcom/neglectedr.pdf
Nelson, N.W., Bahr, C., & Van Meter, A. (2004). The writing lab approach to language instruction
and intervention. Baltimore, MD:Paul H.Brookes Publishing.
Nelson, N.W., & Van Meter, A. (2002). Assessing curriculum-based reading and writing samples. Topics in Language Disorders, 22, 3559.
Newcomer, P., & Hammill, D. (1997). Test of Language Development-Primary 3. Austin,
TX:Pro-Ed.
OConnor, R. E., Bocian, K., Beebe-Frankenberger, M., & Linklater, D. L. (2010).
Responsiveness of students with language difficulties to early intervention in reading.
The Journal of Special Education, 43, 220235.
Puranik, C., & Al Otaiba, S. (2012). Examining the contribution of letter writing fluency
and spelling to composition in kindergarten children. Reading and Writing: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 15431546. doi:10.1007/s11145-011-9331-x
Puranik, C.S., Lombardino, L.J., & Altmann, L.J. P. (2007). Writing through retellings:An
exploratory study of language impaired and dyslexic populations. Reading and
Writing:An Interdisciplinary Journal, 20, 251272.
Puranik, C., & Lonigan, C. (2012). Early writing deficits in preschoolers with
oral language difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 179190.
doi:10.1177/0022219411423423
Puranik, C.S., Petscher, Y., Al Otaiba, S., Catts, H.W., & Lonigan, C.J. (2008). Development
of oral reading fluency in children with speech or language impairments. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 41, 545560.
Ritchey, K. D., Coker, D. L., & McCraw, S. B. (2010). A comparaion of metrics for scoring
beginning spelling. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35, 7888.
Scarborough, H.S., & Dobrich, W. (1990). Development of children with early language delay.
Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 33, 7083.
Scott, C. (2005). Learning to write. In H. W.Catts & A. G.Kamhi (Eds.), Language and reading
disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 233273). Needham Heights, MA:Allyn & Bacon.
Scott, C., & Windsor, J. (2000). General language performance measures in spoken and written
discourse produced by school-age children with and without language learning disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 324339.
Shanahan, T. (2006). Relations among oral language, reading, and writing development. In C.
Silva, P.A. (1980). Experiences, activities and the pre-school child:a report from the Dunedin
Multidisciplinary Child Development Study. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 5,
1319.
Smith, C. L., & Tager-Flusberg, H. (1982). Metalinguistic awareness and language development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 34, 449468.
Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading:some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360406.
Teale, W. H., & Sulzby, E. (Eds.). (1986). Emergent literacy: Writing and reading. Norwood,
NJ:Ablex.
Tomblin, J. B., Records, N., Buckwalter, P., Zhang, X., Smith, E., & OBrien, M. (1997).
Prevalence of specific language impairment in kindergarten children. Journal of Speech,
Treiman, R., & Bourassa, D.C. (2000). The development of spelling skill. Topics in Language
Disorders, 20, 118.
Treiman, R., Kessler, B., & Bourassa, D. (2001). Childrens own name influences their spelling.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.
Wagner, R. K., Puranik, C., Foorman, B., Foster, E., Wilson, L. G., Tschinkel, E., & Kantor,
P. T. (2011). Modeling the development of written language. Reading & Writing: An
Interdisciplinary Journal. doi:10.1007/s11145-010-9266-7
Windsor, J., Scott, C.M., & Street, C.K. (2000). Verb and noun morphology in the spoken
and written language of children with language learning disabilities. Journal of Speech,
Woodcock, R., McGrew, K., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive
Abilities. Itasca, IL:Riverside.
CHAPTER10
Morphological Awareness and Spelling

Difficulties in French-Speaking Children
MONIQUE SNCH AL
earning to spell is more than merely memorizing letter sequences and applying rules because it also involves developing adaptive and efficient strategies
(Rittle-Johnson & Siegler, 1999; Varnhagen, 1995). Moreover, the ease with which
children learn to spell is closely linked to the phonological transparency of the writing system. In transparent alphabetic languages such as Finnish, children can spell
most words by relying on their knowledge of sound-to-letter correspondences. In
more opaque languages like French or English, children may need to call on additional skills to build accurate orthographic representations for words. In this chapter, we examined how French-speaking children who have poor morphological
awareness also have difficulty spelling words that carry morphemic information. Of
special interest was whether these children would report using morphological spelling strategies when they represented morphological information in their spelling.
Morphological awareness refers to childrens linguistic insight that words can
be parsed in constituent morphemes (Carlisle, 1995; Casalis & Louis-Alexandre,
2000; Deacon & Kirby, 2004; Nunes, Bryant, & Bindman, 2006; McBride-Chang,
Wagner, Muse, Chow, & Shu, 2005). Childrens ability to reflect upon and manipulate individual morphemic units explains individual differences in childrens spelling as reported in the meta-analysis by Snchal and Kearnan (2007). The literature
they reviewed was correlational in nature and the studies included oral measures
of morphological awareness. In Nagy et al.s study both oral and written measures
of morphological awareness were used (Nagy, Berninger, Abbott, Vaughan, &
Vermeulen, 2003). As indicated in Table 10.1, the 11 studies that met their selection criteria were conducted on alphabetic languages and represented 1,122 children. The mean correlation, adjusted for differences in sample sizes, was moderate
Table10.1 STUDY CHARACTERISTICS AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

BETWEEN MORPHOLOGICAL AWARENESS (MA) AND SPELLING
Study
Grade
Child Lang.
Fowler & Liberman (1995)

Hauerwas & Walker (2003)
48
88
2; 3; 4
3; 6; 7; 8
E
E
Kemp (2006):Study 1
74
1;2;3;4
Kemp (2006):Study 2
75
3;4
MA type
D
I
.53
.28
.44
Both
.49
Fi
.49
Lehtonen & Bryant (2005)
106
1,2,3
Leong (2000)
226
4; 5; 6
.55
40
k to 1
.44
Levin etal. (1999)

Ouellette & Snchal (2006)
115
Both
.40
Plaza & Cohen (2004)
199
1;2
.35
Snchal (2000)
Snchal etal. (2006)
112
39
2; 4
4
F
F
D
D
.48
.43
E=English; F=French; Fi=Finnish; H=Hebrew; I=inflections; D=derivations.
(r = .46, CIs = .40 to .52), and fairly stable across studies as reflected by a heterogeneity statistic that was not significantly different from zero (Q = 8.13, p >.05).
The heterogeneity statistic indexes the variability in correlations across individual
studies, and when it is not statistically significant, it means that this variability is
not greater than what would be expected by chance. In other words, the mean correlation seems to be representative of the body of studies included. Snchal and
Kearnan also reviewed the individual studies to show that morphological awareness
made a unique contribution to spelling after controlling for age (Nunes, Bryant, &
Bindman, 1997a, b; Snchal, 2000), intelligence (Nunes et al., 1997a, b), previous
measures of spelling (Nunes et al., 1997a, b) or spelling of regular words (Snchal,
2000; Snchal, Basque, & Leclair, 2006), vocabulary (Fowler & Liberman, 1995;
Snchal, 2000), phoneme awareness (Snchal, 2000), and naming speed (Plaza
& Cohen, 2004). Taken together, these findings suggest that morphological awareness has a robust association with spelling that cannot be explained by other key
predictors of spelling. In the present chapter, the findings of Snchal (2000) and
Snchal et al. (2006) were re-examined to assess the specific spelling difficulties of
French-speaking children with weak morphological awareness.
The French Orthography
The rules of word formation are very clear and phonologically transparent in some
languages such as Finnish, but they are less clear in languages such as English and
French (Vannest, Bertram, Jarvikivi, & Niemi, 2002). The English and French
orthography map onto the morphophonological structure of the language, because
M o r p h o l o g i cal Awa r e n e s s a n d Sp e ll i n g D i ff i c u lt i e s [ 1 3 1 ]
some spelling patterns represent the etymology of a word, or its morphology, in

addition to mapping phonemes onto corresponding graphemes. In fact, the French
written language represents aspects of morphology that are not represented phonologically. For instance, inflected words and root words often end with silent
consonants that indicate morphological information. Consider that the plural is
most often marked with a final silent -s in nouns and a silent -nt in regular verbs
(e.g., bol/bols; il danse/ils dansent). Moreover, the silent final consonant in certain
nouns marks the relation with derivatives such as derived verbs (e.g., chant/chanter;
repos/reposer). Hence, the predominantly silent morphology means that children
must learn to spell words correctly without an oral reference (Alegria & Mousty,
1996; Cormier & Kelson, 2000; Fayol, Totereau, & Barrouillet, 2006; Pacton &
Fayol, 2003; Totereau, Thevenin, & Fayol, 1997). In research on marking the plural of nouns (-s) and verbs (-nt), Fayol and his colleagues observed that elementary children frequently failed to mark the plural (Fayol, Hupet, & Largy, 1999;
Largy, Cousin, Bryant, & Fayol, 2007); that when spelling homophones, children overgeneralize the use ofs to verbs and the use ofnt to nouns (Totereau,
Barrouillet, & Fayol, 1998); and that even skilled spellers are easily disrupted in
their subject-verb agreement (Fayol, Largy, & Lemaire, 1994). These findings demonstrate the increased difficulty of languages in which there is a mismatch between
phonological and morphological information.
Because morphological information in French is often marked orthographically
but not phonologically (Clark, 1985), then childrens morphological knowledge
could play an important role in learning to spell correctly. Indeed, French childrens sensitivity to morphological information facilitated the choice of appropriate homophonic endings in grades 2 and 3. In French, the phoneme /o/ can be
spelled o, ot, au, eau, but only the grapheme eau marks the inflection for the masculine diminutive. Pacton, Fayol, and Perruchet (2005) found that children were
more likely to include the grapheme eau in their spelling of pseudo-words when the
sentence context clearly indicated that the pseudo-word was a diminutive (A little
/vitar/ is a /vitareau/) as opposed to when the sentence context did not indicate a
diminutive form (A tall /vitar/ is a /vitaro/). These morphological effects, however,
interacted with the graphotactic probability of the final two graphemes, such that
children spelled /o/ with the grapheme eau less frequently when the graphotactic
probability was low (i.e., f rarely precedes eau) than when it was high (i.e., v frequently precedes eau). Taken together, these results suggest that children integrate
information from a variety of sources when they spell.
The research by Pacton etal. (2005) presumes that children acquire knowledge
about morphology through exposure to written texts, and that the extraction of morphemic features does not require explicit processing, but may occur implicitly (also
see, Pacton & Deacon, 2008). Other research, however, has found that children can
use the morphological relations between words strategically and explicitly to help
them spell words accurately (Snchal et al., 2006). By thinking of the morphological relations among words, children can choose the correct spelling from other
possible spelling alternatives. Consider the case of the silent letters in the French
orthography. To spell accurately the silent t in chant, children can use their understanding of the link between chant and chanter to write the silent-consonant ending.
In the present research, children with good and poor morphological awareness skills were to spell two kinds of words, namely, phonological and morphological words. Phonological words were those that contained consistent
phoneme-grapheme patterns (Waters, Bruck, & Malus-Abramowitz, 1988)whereas
morphological words ended with a silent consonant and were those words for
which derivatives clearly revealed the silent-consonant ending. For example, rang
would be classified as a morphological word because the silent-letter g in rang can
be determined by thinking of its derivative, range. Childrens spelling accuracy
should be linked to how deeply children had to go in the orthographic structure of
words to extract the correct spelling. Hence, phonological words should be easier to
spell than were morphological words. To isolate the specific role of morphological
awareness to spelling morphological words, children high and low on morphological awareness were matched on phonological awareness. Given the link between
phonological awareness and spelling phonologically transparent words, there
should not be any group difference on spelling phonological words. That is, the
group differences should only appear when children are presented with words for
which spelling is facilitated by relying on morphological awareness.
STUDY 1
Method
Participants. From an initial sample of 57 French-speaking grade 2 children who

had participated in Snchal (2000), a subsample of 20 children (50% girls) who
performed below the median on a morphological awareness task were selected.
The selected children were then matched on phonological awareness to 20 children
(55% girls) who scored above the median on morphological awareness. On average, the children were 7 years 6 months (SD = 4 mo). All the children were native
speakers of French, and French was the language of instruction in schools.
Morphological awareness task. A word analogy task of the type a:b::c:d was
selected to measure morphological awareness because Nunes et al. (1997a, b)
found that it was a better predictor of spelling as compared to other morphological
tasks. In this task, children are given a pair of words that are linked by a morphological relation (e.g., the noun danse and the derived verb danser). Then, they are
given the first item (e.g., the noun saut) of a second pair that has the same type of
morphological relation as the first pair. Children are to deduce the missing item
(e.g., the verb sauter). The morphological relations tested were: masculine to feminine form (e.g., gris:grise::blond: blonde), noun to verb (e.g., repos:reposer::refus;
refuser), noun to other noun (e.g., crit:criture::toit; toiture), adjective to adverb
(e.g., rapide:rapidement::heureux: heureusement). In all cases, the target pair of
items included a silent consonant ending. The task included three practice items
and 12 test items; and Snchal (2000) reported the inter-item reliability for this
task to be adequate, Cronbachs alpha = .72.
Phoneme awareness task. Childrens sensitivity to the phonology of spoken
French was measured with a phoneme-deletion task. Children were asked to say
what word is left when a specified phoneme is removed. Children were asked to
remove phonemes from the beginning or medial portions of one, two, and three
syllable words (e.g., port without /p/; souffrir without /f/; assigner without /gn/).
Children were given practice items for which they received feedback. The task
included three practice items and 15 test items; and Snchal (2000) reported the
inter-item reliability for this task to be good, Cronbachs alpha = .83.
Vocabulary test. Including a measure of vocabulary was necessary because of
the known relation between vocabulary and morphological awareness. Specifically,
Snchal and Kearnan (2007), in their meta-analytic review, reported an average correlation coefficient of .48 (CIs = .44 to .52; 19 studies representing 2,556
children) between vocabulary and morphological awareness. Childrens receptive
vocabulary was measured with the chelle de Vocabulaire en Images Peabody
(Dunn, Thrien-Whalen et Dunn, 1993). The norms for the test are from a French
Canadian sample and the average reported reliability for the test is .81. The standardized scores were used in the analyses.
Spelling task. Children spelled 30 words divided into two categories.
Phonological words (N=10 words) were those that did not include any silent letters and could be spelled using phoneme-to-grapheme knowledge (e.g., tiroir, clair,
dollar, journal, lac, bocal, soif). Morphological words (N=20 words) were those for
which the final consonant could be deduced by using derivatives (e.g., bavard, lent,
laid, camp, vent, rang, dbut). For example, the silent d in bavard could be deduced
from the feminine form bavarde. The categories of words did not differ significantly in terms of written word frequencies and number of letters, syllables, and
orthographic neighbors (Snchal, 2000). The reliability for this task was good,
Cronbachs alpha=.93.
Children listened to each word presented individually, then in a sentence that
clarified its meaning, followed by a repetition of the word. Childrens responses
were scored in two ways:once to reflect the correct spelling of the entire word and
once to reflect the correct spelling of the silent-consonant ending.
Results and Discussion
The descriptive statistics as well as the results of the statistical tests assessing
group differences are reported in Table10.2. As shown, children differed on morphological awareness, but not on phoneme awareness. Hence, any group difference in spelling should not be due to differences in their phoneme awareness.
Table10.2 MEAN PERFORMANCE AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR EACH

TASK FOR GRADE 2 CHILDREN WITH HIGH (n=20) AND LOW (n=20)
MORPHOLOGICAL AWARENESS (MA) IN STUDY 1
Low MA
High MA
F(38)a
Effect
sizeb
SD
SD
4.0
8.1
1.1
2.6
7.3
8.2
1.3
2.3
75.7***
> 1.0
.67
.00
108.7
9.4
123.6
12.7
17.9***
.32
Phonological words
43.5
20.3
44.0
21.1
> 1.0
.01
Morphological words
Morphological words endings
13.0
18.5
7.8
10.1
25.8
31.3
15.2
15.9
Morphological awareness (max=12)

Phoneme awareness (max=15)
Vocabularyc (max = 160)
Spelling (%correct)
df=37 for tests of spelling performance because of the inclusion of vocabulary as a covariate.
Eta square.
Standardized scores with test mean of 100.
4.3*
4.0*
.10
.10
*** p < .001; * p < .05.
However, children with high morphological awareness had a stronger vocabulary

than did children with low morphological awareness. Given this statistically significant difference across the two groups, all tests examining spelling included
vocabulary as a covariate in an attempt to remove statistically the potential
impact of vocabulary.
The first question addressed was whether the children would differ on their use
of sound-to-letter correspondence rules to spell words. Because the children in
the two groups had equivalent phoneme awareness skills, group differences were
not expected, and none were found on spelling phonological words. This finding
is important because it shows that children with low morphological awareness are
able to apply their knowledge of how to translate sounds into orthographic patterns
when those patterns are phonologically transparent.
The second and central question was whether group differences would appear
when spelling morphological words that are more difficult because of the presence
of a silent letter. As expected, children with low morphological awareness had more
difficulty spelling words with silent endings than did children with stronger morphological awareness (be it the entire word or the silent consonant ending). The role
of childrens awareness of morphology appears to be specific to spelling morphological words because children with low morphological awareness were just as likely to
spell phonological words accurately as were children with stronger morphological
awareness. Finally, an analysis of spelling errors of word endings revealed that the
most frequent error was the omission of the silent consonant (63% of errors).
The pattern of findings for Study 1 is consistent with the notion that morphological
knowledge plays a specific role in spelling words, one that is limited to morphological
information. This finding constrains those of Nunes etal. (1997a, b) who had tested
the role of morphological awareness on childrens spelling of morphological information only (i.e., spelling of the past tense). The finding also constrains the findings of
more general tests of the link between morphological knowledge and general spelling
skills (Fowler & Liberman, 1995). Findings such as these are important because they
provide guidance for the design of interventions targeted to the specific difficulties that
children experience and to the potential causes of those difficulties. For example, training children in morphological awareness should have an impact on spelling specific
types of words (those with morphological links to other words) as opposed to having
a general impact on spelling. Hence, the selection of appropriate outcome variables
becomes important when evaluating the efficacy of interventions. Moreover, the findings also suggest that training in phoneme awareness alone or in vocabulary alone
might not lead to the expected benefits on spelling morphological words.
The significant advantage of children with strong morphological awareness
when spelling morphological words suggests that children are sensitive to the morphological structure of words. It is assumed that children with weaker morphological awareness cannot make use strategically of the relations among words as readily
as children with stronger morphological awareness. The findings, however, provide
indirect evidence of morphological strategy use. Children may not use morphological strategies at all, but find that orthographic representations of morphological
words are easier to store in long-term memory due to the redundancy in orthographic patterns among root words and their derivatives (Pacton & Deacon, 2008).
In Study 2, data from Snchal etal. (2006) were used to examine whether children
would report using morphological strategies, and whether the reported use of morphological strategies would be linked to spelling accuracy.
STUDY 2
By thinking of the morphological relations among words, children can choose the
correct spelling from other possible spelling alternatives. Amorphological strategy
can help in two ways:it alerts children to the presence of a silent-consonant ending, and it allows the selection of the silent letter. It is expected that children with
weak morphological awareness would be less likely to report using a morphological
strategy, and, when they do, they would be less efficient in using it.
Method
Participants. Children were selected from an initial sample of 39 French-speaking

grade 4 children from Snchal et al. (2006, Study 2). There were 18 children
(61% girls) who scored below the median on the morphological awareness task
and 15 children (60% girls) who scored above the median. The remaining children
scored at the median and were not selected. On average, the children were 9years
10months (SD=5 mo). French was the language of instruction in schools.
Spelling task. The experimental spelling task included six phonological words
(6 words: lac, bocal, journal, clair, canif, tambour), and twelve morphological words
(12 words: gras, gratuit, pais, blond, tannant, bavard, rang, retard, habit, dbut, repos,
galop). The types of words did not differ statistically (all p >.24) in terms of number
of letters and syllables, orthographic and phonological neighbors, their frequency
of occurrence in French schoolbooks appropriate for grades 1 to 5, as well as their
phonology-to-orthography consistency. Snchal et al. (2006) reported that the
entire set of words as well as the subset of 12 morphological words had good interitem reliability with alphas of .86 and .85, respectively, but the reliability for the
phonological words was lower probably due to the inclusion of fewer items (alphas
of .58).
Strategy-use questions. After spelling each word, children answered a series of
closed-ended questions, followed by an open-ended question. The questions were:
Did you know how to spell the word by heart; Did you spell the word by sounding it
out; Did you use another word to help you spell the whole word? And if so, what word
did you use? For the open-ended question, children were asked whether there was
anything else they would add to help a friend spell the word (Varnhagen, 1995).
All responses were scored by two researchers, and inter-scorer agreement was 99%.
Disagreements were resolved by discussion.
Morphological awareness task. The same task as Study 1 was used.
Procedure. Administration of the experimental spelling task was followed
by the morphological awareness task. Testing was conducted individually in the
Spring of the school year.
Results and Discussion
The descriptive statistics and the t-tests are presented in Table10.3. Both groups
of children performed similarly when spelling phonological transparent words.
Importantly, both groups of children reported using a similar amount of phonological strategies, and were equally successful in spelling the words accurately when
they reported using a phonological strategy. Hence, the children with low morphological awareness were able to apply their knowledge of how to translate sounds
into orthographic patterns when those patterns are phonologically transparent.
This pattern of results replicates and extends the findings of Study 1.
The analyses of children spelling performance for morphological words revealed
that, as expected, children with low morphological awareness had more difficulty
spelling words with silent endings than did children with stronger morphological awareness. Most importantly, children with weaker morphological awareness
Table10.3 MEAN PERFORMANCE AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR EACH

TASK FOR GRADE 4 CHILDREN WITH HIGH (n=18) AND LOW (n=15)
MORPHOLOGICAL AWARENESS (MA) IN STUDY 2
Low MA
High MA
F(31)
Effect
sizea
102.6***
.77
SD
SD
6.5
1.4
10.5
0.7
Spelling (%correct)
64.8
24.2
75.6
26.6
1.5
.05
Phonological Strategy Use
71.3
38.3
63.3
35.2
> 1.0
.01
Efficiency of Phonological Strategiesb
60.6
27.0
72.1
34.2
1.1
.04
Spelling (%correct)
39.3
28.3
69.8
25.3
10.5**
.25
Phonological Strategy Use

Efficiency of Phonological Strategiesc
7.7
62.2
11.2
47.1
32.8
98.6
31.6
4.5
9.9**
5.9*
.24
.23
Morphological awareness (max=12)

Phonological words
Morphological words
Eta square.
Conditional probabilities of spelling correctly for the 16 low- and 14 high-morphological-awareness children
reporting using phonological strategies to spell phonological words.
b
Conditional probabilities of spelling correctly for the 12 low- and 10 high-morphological-awareness children
reporting using morphological strategies to spell morphological words.
c
*** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05
were less likely to report using a morphological strategy to spelling words than did
children with stronger morphological awareness. Moreover, children who reported
using morphological strategies tended to spell the words correctly, but children
with weaker morphological awareness were less successful (62% of the time) as
opposed to children with stronger morphological awareness (98% of the time).
The analyses of spelling errors for morphological words revealed that over 80%
of errors were errors with the silent consonant, and, of these, the most frequent
error made by children was the omission of the silent-consonant ending (85%).
As in Study 1, silent-consonant endings were the major difficulty for spelling these
words accurately.
Taken together, the findings support and extend previous research investigating indirect evidence of the value of morphological strategy use (Carlisle, 1988;
Waters et al., 1988). The specificity of reporting morphological strategies when
spelling morphological words as well as the accuracy linked with these reports provides some converging evidence that children can use morphological knowledge
explicitly during spelling. However, the findings show that children with weaker
morphological awareness very infrequently report using morphological strategies
and, when they do, they are less efficient than children with stronger morphological
awareness.
IMPLICATION FOR TEACHING
The accumulated evidence suggests that children make use of regularities in the language, be it phonological, orthographic, and morphological to read and spell words
(Christianson, Johnson, & Rayner, 2005). Given that languages vary in the clarity
with which oral language is represented in writing, then one should expect that the
relative role of phonological, orthographic, and morphological processing would
vary accordingly. In the present chapter, the focus was on the relative contribution
of morphological awareness to spelling in French. The findings of Study 1 and 2
show that children with weak morphological awareness have difficulty spelling
morphological words that include silent consonant endings. Importantly, the same
children do not show any relative weakness when spelling words with transparent
letter-sound correspondences.
There are a limited number of intervention studies designed to assess the
causal role of morphological awareness to childrens reading and spelling
(Arnbak & Elbro, 2000; Lyster, 2002; Nunes, Bryant & Olsson, 2003; Robinson
& Hesse, 1981). The findings from these studies show that children trained
in morphological awareness outperform children in control groups, but that
they typically perform similarly to children trained in phonological awareness
on general measures of reading or spelling. There is some evidence of specific
effects, however. For instance, Nunes et al. (2003) reported that morphologically trained children spelled past tense suffixes more accurately than did the
phonologically trained children. The findings in the present chapter also suggest
that it is important to expect specific effects.
Given the particular difficulties that multimorphemic words can pose, researchers have argued that systematic and sequential instruction of morphology is
needed during the elementary years of schooling (e.g., Carlisle & Fleming, 2003;
Henry, 1993; Green, McCutchen, Schwiebert, Quinlan, Eva-Wood, & Juelis, 2003;
Worthy & Viise, 1996). Morphological rules, however, are currently not taught or
taught partially to elementary-school children (Nunes et al., 1997a, b). Although
these observations were made for the English language, they also apply to French.
Perhaps, as Carlisle and Stone (2005) suggest, this is partly due to the fact that educators are more familiar with concepts of phonemes and phoneme awareness than
with concepts of morphemes and morphemic awareness. This may change in time
as we accumulate stronger scientific evidence on the valuable role of morphological
knowledge to reading and spelling.
REFERENCES
Alegria, J., & Mousty, P. (1996). The development of spelling procedures in French- speaking, normal and reading-disabled children:Effects of frequency and lexicality. Journal of
Arnbak, E., & Elbro, C. (2000). The effects of morphological awareness training on the reading
and spelling skills of young dyslexics. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 44,
229251.
Carlisle, J. F. (1988). Knowledge of derivational morphology and spelling ability in fourth,
sixth, and eighth graders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 247266.
Carlisle, J.F. (1995). Morphological awareness and early reading achievement. In L. Feldman
(Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 189209). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Carlisle, J.F., & Fleming, J. (2003). Lexical processing of morphologically complex words in the
elementary years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 239253.
Carlisle, J.F., & Stone, C.A. (2005). Exploring the role of morphemes in word reading. Reading
Research Quarterly, 40, 428449.
Casalis, S., & Louis-Alexandre, M.-F. (2000). Morphological analysis, phonological analysis and
learning to read French:Alongitudinal study. Reading and Writing:An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 12, 303335.
Christianson, K., Johnson, R.L., & Rayner K. (2005). Letter transpositions within and across
morphemes. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31,
13271339.
Clark, E. (1985). The acquisition of Romance languages with special reference to French. In D.
Slobin (Ed.) The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Cormier, P., & Kelson, S. (2000). The roles of phonological and syntactic awareness in the use
of plural morphemes among children in French immersion. Scientific Studies of Reading,
4, 267293.
Deacon, S.H., & Kirby, J.R. (2004). Morphological awareness:Just more phonological? The
roles of morphological and phonological awareness in reading development. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 25, 223238.
Dunn, L. M., Thrien-Whalen, C. M., Dunn, L. M., (1993). chelle de vocabulaire en images
Peabody. Toronto, Canada:Psycan.
Fayol, M., Totereau, C., & Barrouillet, P. (2006). Disentangling the impact of semantic and
formal factors in the acquisition of number inflections:Noun, adjective and verb agreement in written French. Reading and Writing:An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 717736.
Fayol, M., Hupet, M., & Largy, P. (1999). The acquisition of subject-verb agreement in written French:From novices to experts errors. Reading and Writing:An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 11, 153174.
Fayol, M., Largy, P., & Lemaire, P. (1994). Cognitive overload and orthographic errors:When
cognitive overload enhances subject verb agreement errors: A study in French written language. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental
Psychology, 47A, 437464.
Fowler, A.E., & Liberman, I.Y. (1995). The role of phonology and orthography in morphological awareness. In L. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp.
157188). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Green, L., McCutchen, D., Schwiebert, C., Quinlan, T., Eva-Wood, A., & Juelis, J. (2003).
Morphological development in childrens writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95,
752761.
Hauerwas, L., B., & Walker, J. (2003). Spelling of inflected verb morphology in children with
spelling deficits. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 2535.
Henry, M. K. (1993). Morphological structure: Latin and Greek roots and affixes as
upper grade code strategies. Reading and Writing : An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5,
135152.
Kemp, N. (2006). Childrens spelling of base, inflected, and derived words:Links with morphological awareness. Reading and Writing:An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 737765.
Largy, P., Cousin, M., Bryant, P., & Fayol, M. (2007). When memorized instances compete with
rules:The case of numbernoun agreement in written French. Journal of Child Language,
34, 425437. doi:10.1017/S0305000906007914
Lehtonen, A., & Bryant, P. (2005). Active players or just passive bystanders? The role of morphemes in spelling development in a transparent orthography. Applied Psycholinguistics,
26, 137155.
Leong, C.K. (2000). Rapid processing of base and derived forms of words and grades 4,
5 and 6 childrens spelling. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12,
277302.
Levin, I., Ravid, D., & Rapaport, S. (1999). Developing morphological awareness and learning
to write:Atwo-way street. In T. Nunes (Ed.), Learning to read:An integrated view from
research and practice (pp. 77104). NewYork, NY:Kluwer.
Lyster, S.-A. H. (2002). The effects of morphological versus phonological awareness training in
kindergarten on reading development. Reading and Writing:An Interdisciplinary Journal,
15, 261294.
McBride-Chang, C., Wagner, R., K., Muse, A., Chow, B., W., & Shu, H. (2005). The role of
morphological awareness in childrens vocabulary acquisition in English. Applied
Nagy, W., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Vaughan, K., & Vermeulen, K. (2003). Relationship of morphology and other language skills to literacy skills in at-risk second-grade readers and
at-risk fourth-grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 730742.
Nunes, T., P.Bryant, P., & Bindman, M. (2006). The effects of learning to spell on childrens
awareness of morphology. Reading and Writing:An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 767787.
Nunes, T., Bryant, P., & Bindman, M. (1997a). Learning to spell regular and irregular verbs.
Reading and Writing:An Interdisciplinary Journal, 9, 427449.
Nunes, T., Bryant, P., & Bindman, M. (1997b). Morphological spelling strategies:Developmental
stages and processes. Developmental Psychology, 33, 637649.
Nunes, T., Bryant, P., & Olsson, J. (2003). Learning morphological and phonological spelling
rules:An intervention study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 289307.
Ouellette, G. P., & Snchal, M. (2006). A window into early literacy: Exploring the cognitive and linguistic underpinnings of invented spelling (Tech. Rep. No. 06-01). Ottawa,
Canada:Carleton University, Cognitive Development Laboratory.
Pacton, S., & Deacon, S.H. (2008). The timing and mechanisms of childrens use of morphological information in spelling:Areview of evidence from English and French. Cognitive
Development, 23, 339359. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2007.09.004
Pacton, S., Fayol, M., & Perruchet, P. (2005). Childrens Implicit Learning of Graphotactic and
Morphological Regularities. Child Development, 76, 324339.
Pacton, S., & Fayol, M. (2003). How do French children use morphosyntactic information when they spell adverbs and present participles? Scientific Studies of Reading, 7,
273287.
Plaza, M., & Cohen, H. (2004). Predictive influence of phonological processing, morphological/syntactic skill, and naming speed on spelling performance. Brain and Cognition, 55,
368373.
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Siegler, R.S. (1999). Learning to spell:Variability, choice, and change in
childrens strategy use. Child Development, 70, 332348.
Robinson, J.W., & Hesse, K.D. (1981). A morphemically based spelling programs effect on
spelling skills and spelling performance of seventh grade students. Journal of Educational
Research, 75, 5662.
Snchal, M. (2000). Morphological effects in childrens spelling of French words. Canadian
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 7685.
Snchal, M., Basque, M., Leclaire, T. (2006). Morphological knowledge as revealed

in experimental child psychology. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 95,
231254.
Snchal, M., & Kearnan, K. (2007). The role of morphology to reading and spelling. In R. Kail
(Ed.) Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 35, chap.8, pp. 297325), San
Diego, CA, US:Elsevier.
Totereau, C., Barrouillet, P., & Fayol, M. (1998). Overgeneralizations of number inflections in the learning of written French: The case of noun and verb. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 16, 447464.
Totereau. C., Thevenin, M. G., & Fayol, M. (1997) The development of understanding of
number morphology in written French. In C. A.Perfetti, L. Rieben., & M. Fayol (Eds.),
Learning to spell:Research, theory, and practice across languages (pp. 96114). Hillsdale,
NJ:Erlbaum.
Vannest, J., Bertram, R., Jarvikivi, J., & Niemi, J. (2002). Counterintuitive cross- linguistic
differences: More morphological computation in English than in Finnish. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 83106.
Varnhagen, C.K. (1995). Childrens spelling strategies. In V. W.Berninger (Ed.), The varieties of
orthographic knowledge II:Relationships to phonology, reading, and writing (pp. 251290).
Dordrecht, Netherlands:Kluwer.
Waters, G.S., Bruck, M., & Malus-Abramowitz, M. (1988). The role of linguistic and visual
information in spelling:Adevelopmental study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
45, 400421.
Worthy, J., & Viise, N., M. (1996). Morphological, phonological, and orthographic differences
between the spelling of normally achieving children and basic literacy adults. Reading
and Writing:An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8, 139159.
CHAPTER11
Writing Abilities of Pre-adolescents

with and without Language/Learning
Impairment in Restructuring an
Informative Text
ORNA DAVIDI AND RU TH A . BER M AN
roficient writing of extended texts requires a level of linguistic literacy involving coordination of a wide range of linguistic and executive abilities (Berman
& Ravid, 2009; Ravid & Tolchinsky, 2002). In recent years, text construction has
become the focus of educational and linguistic research on normally developing
children (Boscolo & Cisotto, 1999; Cutler & Graham, 2008; Graham, MacArthur,
& Fitzgerald, 2007; Vincent, 2006)as well as ones with language difficulties (Beard,
Riley, Myhill, & Nystrand, 2009; Graham & Harris, 2005; Mackie & Dockrell,
2004).
The chapter reports an exploratory study examining the written productions
of typically developing Hebrew-speaking middle-school students compared
with their peers with language/learning difficulties. It is difficult to factor out
the specific role played by language in general school-based tasks, since impairments may be in language and/or in overall learning strategies. Consequently,
the terms children with language learning disabilities (Scott & Windsor, 2000),
language/learning impairment (Gillam & Johnston, 1992), or language
impairment (Berman & Ravid, 2010) are used largely interchangeably in the
literature. Here, the label language/learning impairment (LLI) is adopted,
so as to avoid taking a stand on the priority of either language or learning, with
the slash denoting a deliberately vague connection between the two. LLI children have been described as performing significantly below their classmates on
linguistic and other school-based tasks (Dockrell, 2009; Scott, 2004), including
pre-adolescents characterized as struggling writers (Boscolo, Gelati, & Galvan,
2012). Hebrew-based research demonstrates that large numbers of school-going
children experience difficulties with written text production in mastering spelling
and other notational skills (Ravid, 2011), in command of linguistic structures
(Ravid, Avivi-Ben Zvi, & Levie, 1999), and more global and conceptual aspects
of text generation (Zarif, 2005).
Participants in the present study were given an encyclopedic-type text to read,
which they were then required to rewrite in their own words from memory, without
access to the original text. Such reconstruction has several advantages: It involves
both reading and writing; it ensures a shared content-base, promoting between- and
within-group comparability; students need not generate their own original ideas;
and they can refer to the source text as a model of what content to include and how
to organize it, thereby facilitating the cognitively burdensome task of written text
production. At the same time, text reconstruction represents an active reflection of
linguistic and discursive abilities, rather than a merely memory-dependent replication of rote-learned material (Sandbank, 2004; van Dijk, 1979), and not having
access to the source text while writing means that students need to show that they
can construct an adequate mental representation of what they have read. Besides,
recalling material that has been read is critical for many school-based activities and
for academic success in general.
The text selected for reconstructionabout the medieval scholar
Copernicusrepresents the biographical subgenre of encyclopedic discourse,
and, therefore, includes both factual scientific information and narrative elements
(Grabe, 2002; Swales, 1990). The non-narrative components (e.g., scientific
information about astronomy) are in line with expository prose and academic
writing (Graesser & Goodman, 1985), common in school textbooks (Boscolo,
1990), presenting complex cognitive and linguistic challenges (Nippold & Scott,
2010). Yet the text also follows the life-story of its protagonist, so it contains
sequential, episodic features of narrative (Labov, 1972), an early-acquired, accessible genre of discourse (Berman, 2009) that should facilitate the task of written
reconstruction.
The texts we elicited were analyzed in relation to three domains: verbal productivityin terms of overall text length; complex syntaxuse of hierarchical
dependencies in combining clauses into larger chunks; and thematic quality
amount and accuracy of the information provided. Assessment of the first two
was based on prior research on text construction abilities of school children and
adolescents in Hebrew and other languages (Berman, 2008; chapter 2, this volume), whereas measures of thematic quality were designed specifically for the
present study.1 The writing of the LLI students was expected to differ from their
typically developing (TD) peers at the same age-schooling level along all three
dimensions.
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 20 native Hebrew-speaking seventh-grader middle-school students aged 1213 years.2 This age-schooling level represents an important stage
in development of writing abilities (Berman & Nir, 2010, 2011; Kellogg, 2008),
because the period between grade and high school involves both an institutional
shift and changes in school-based literacy activities and hence in students linguistic
abilities.
The 20 participants were divided into two groups of five boys and five girls
typically developing students (TD) and their peers with language/learning impairment (LLI) from well-educated, middle-class family backgrounds, attending the
same high-achieving school in central Israel. Students in both groups attend the
same classes, thereby sharing learning experiences. The TD group were rated by
their class teachers as average or above, hence normally achieving, in overall scholastic performance. Students in the LLI group had been independently identified
as requiring instructional intervention (remedial teaching in Hebrew) in addition to their regular classroom curricula.3 Participants in both groups were selected
from a larger pool of seventh grade students to whom the first authora qualified
didactic evaluatoradministered a reading fluency test (taken from the test battery of Shany, Lachman, Shalem, Bahat, &, Zieger, 2006)which required them to
read aloud an informative text of 209 words long in nonvocalized Hebrew (Ravid,
2011). The 10 TD and 10 LLI students participating in the study all scored above
the 25th percentile (over 92 words per minute), and, hence, were able to decode an
extended piece of writing. That is, participants in both groups were at least average
for their age-schooling level on reading fluency, although the LLI students were
below expectation across a range of other language/learning skills, including reading comprehension.
Procedure
Participants writing proficiency was assessed by their performance on reconstruction of an encyclopedic text of 311 words and four paragraphs long in the
Hebrew original (see Appendix).4 To ensure that the research text was neither
too difficult nor too easy for normally developing children at the target ageschooling level, text selection was preceded by lengthy piloting, in which the
first author presented several different texts for reconstruction to a mixed class of
over 37 grade students, including several previously identified as LLI. Paricipants
in the study were required to read and then reconstruct in writing the text on
Copernicus in a single class session, with no time-limit imposed, each participant handing in their text when reading was completed, before starting to write,
W r i t i n g A b i l i t i e s o f P r e -A d o l e s c e n ts w i t h L L I [ 1 4 5 ]
so that they could not consult the source text when writing. They were orally
instructed as follows (translated from Hebrew): You are asked to read a text and
afterwards to write everything you understood and remembered from it in your own
words. Students were not provided any further guidelines regarding the type of
text, how it should be read, how to organize their writing, or what language to use.
Data Analysis
Writing abilities were assessed along three complementary dimensions: thematic

content (by measures designed specifically for this study), verbal productivity, and
complex syntax. Inter-judge reliability on assessing thematic content, conducted on
12 of the 20 texts with an expert on students writing, yielded a high correlation: r
= .99, p<.001.5 The other measures, based on rich experience from prior research,
were assessed by both authors working together on half the texts written by each
group of students, yielding nearly 100% inter-judge agreement.
Verbal Productivity in the sense of overall written language output is developmentally indicative of the writing skills of grade-school children (Malvern, Richards,
Chipere, & Durn, 2004; Silva, Abchi, & Borzone, 2010); it correlates with global
text organization abilities from middle childhood to adolescence (Berman &
Nir, 2009a); and it distinguishes significantly between typically developing and
language-disabled students (Scott & Windsor, 2000). In the present study, overall
text length was measured in both words and clauses. Total number of wordsas
the basic building blocks of languageis criterial of both overall ability at producing written language output and command of writing conventions.6 Number of
clausesas the basic unit for analysis of extended texts (Berman & Slobin, 1994;
Berman & Verhoeven, 2002)provided an internal-reliability check on length as
measured in words, since the two correlate highly (Berman & Nir, 2009a; Berman
& Ravid, 2009). Overall length was supplemented by two other measures:number of words per clauseas a rudimentary measure of clause-level syntactic density,
indicating how much lexical and grammatical material is packaged inside a single
clause (Berman & Ravid, 2009); and number of clauses per Clause Package (CP),
defined by how many clauses are linked together in a single well-structured stretch
of syntax as an index of textual connectivity (Berman & Nir, 2009a).
Division of the source text into clauses and clause packages (CPs) is illustrated
in (1)for the first two sentences of the translated version (of 65 clauses, with 72
clauses in the Hebrew original). Clause boundaries are marked by a square bracket],
and angled brackets <... > indicate clauses embedded inside another clause.
(1) CP-1:Copernicus was born in Poland over five hundred years ago.] In those days,
most people thought] that our Earth was as flat as a table.] CP-2:They thought] that
<whoever went as far as the edge of the Earth> would fall off.]
Thematic Contentindicative of reading comprehension, retention, and

conceptual clarity in relation to the source textwas measured by amount and
accuracy of the information recalled at two levels: eight more general discourse
topics, defined as the core elements that organize a text into its thematic components (Giora, 1985), similar to Brittons (1994) move-ons; and 36 units of
information that provide further details about each topic as elaborative or noncore elements of discourse (Britton et al., 1982; Giora, 1990; Matthiessen &
Thompson, 1988).
Clause-Combining Complex Syntax reflects advanced linguistic expression
and is indicative of Hebrew school-age written language development (Ravid &
Saban, 2008), of text construction in different languages (Berman & Nir, 2009a,
2009b), and of significant differences between LLI and normally developing
pre-adolescents (Scott, 2004; Scott & Windsor, 2000). Here, complex syntax
focused on use of hierarchically linked syntactic dependencies representing
dense packaging of information by combining clauses into large, interwoven
chunks of discourse (Berman & Nir, 2009a; Scott, 2004). Two types of such
dependencies were identified, stacking and nesting, as illustrated by the
clauses in angled brackets by translated excerpts from the source text in (2)and
(3)respectively. In stacked constructions, the subordinated unit is a coordination of two or more clauses packaged together in a single unit of complex syntax
(see chapter 21), while in nested dependencies, one type of complex clause is
inserted inside another.
(2) CP14:After many years of intensive work,] he found] that the earth is not only
round, but <that it also rotates on its own axis>] and, <moreover, that the moon
revolves around the Earth>,] while the Earth is a planet] that revolves around the sun]
(3) CP3:Ptolemy said] that <if the Earth were to spin like a top>,] a terrible wind would
arise] that would blow people straight from the Earth into Space
RESULTS
Given the small number of participants, non-parametric Mann-Whitney U tests

were applied to all measures. Text length was controlled for, given the variability in
length of texts between and within the two groups.
Text Length
The 20 reconstructed texts in the sample were measured for overall length in words,
clauses, and clause packages. Words were counted irrespective of spelling errors,
whereas only grammatically error-free clauses were included in the analysis. Clause
packages (CPs) were defined as groups of clauses packaged together into chunks of
clause-combining syntax, as illustrated in (2)and (3)above. Table11.1 compares
the length of texts in words and clauses, number of words per clause, and number of
clauses per clause package in the two groups.
Table 11.1 displays significant differences between the two groups in overall text
length in words and clauses. For the typically developing participants, text length
ranged from 75 to 243 words (clauses 20 to 50), whereas for the LLI group texts
range from 61 to 118 words (clauses 15 to 28). The texts of the TD participants contained over half the number of words (52%) and clauses (54%) than the source. In
contrast, LLI students text contained approximately a quarter of the original words
(28%) and clauses (27%). Clause density was similar in the two groups (TD M = 4.1
words per clause; LLI M = 4.3. There was, however, a clear and significant difference
between the groups in number of clauses syntactically combined in clause packages
(TD M = 3.8; LLI M = 2.9). One reason for this disparity is that, overall, students in
the LLI group produced more syntactically unrelated isolated clauses (on average,
0.9 isolated clauses, with 1 or 2 isolated clauses produced by 6 out of the 10 in the
group), whereas the TD group averaged only 0.5 isolated clauses, 12 produced by
only 4 of the 10 TD students. Table 11.1 also shows that the TD students reconstructed on average significantly more clause packages than the LLI group.
Thematic Content
Reconstructed texts were compared with the original for two categories of contenteight more inclusive discourse topics (DTs) and 36 more specific units of
Table11.1 MEAN TEXT LENGTH IN WORDS, CLAUSE, AND CLAUSE PACKAGES
(CPS) WITH STANDARD DEVIATIONS IN PARENTHESES, IN
RECONSTRUCTED VERSIONS OF A SOURCE TEXT, BY TD AND LLI STUDENTS
(n=10 PER GROUP)
Measures of length
TD
LLI
No. of words in reconstructed texts
162
88
3.18***
No. of clauses in reconstructed texts
(45.49)
39
(18.30)
20
3.48***
(8.40)
(4.79)
No. of CPs in reconstructed texts
10.20
7.0
(2.61)
(1.82)
2.71**
No. of words per clause
4.13
4.3
.30
No. of clauses per CP
(.37)
3.81
(.84)
2.97
3.10**
(.48)
(.65)
Note:Source text contained:311 words, 72 clauses, 20 CPs; ***p < .001 **p < .01.
information (U-Inf), measured quantitatively, by number of participants mentioning each DT and clauses per DT (Table 11.2), and qualitatively, by type of U-Infs
and accuracy of reconstructed information (Table 11.3).
Table 11.2 shows that two of the DTs (3 and 7) were mentioned by all 10 of the
TD group, and the rest by between 9 to 6 of this group; in contrast, not a single DT
was mentioned by all 10 LLI students, three DTs (1, 4, 7) were mentioned by most
of the LLI group (8 or 9 out of the 10 students), with the other five DTs being mentioned by half or fewer of the LLI students. Table 11.2 also shows a clear difference in
average amount of details provided by the two groups: The TD group reconstructed
significantly more units of information per DT than the LLI, except for the first and
last of the DTs, and there was also a significant difference between the average number of U-Infs reconstructed by the TD group and the LLI group (see Table 11.3).
This quantitative difference in amount of information is supported by number of
clauses per DT (TD M = 4.47; LLI M = 2.41). There was a high correlation between
Table11.2 NUMBER OF TD AND LLI STUDENTS MENTIONING EACH OF

EIGHT DISCOURSE TOPICS (n=10 PER GROUP) AND MEAN PERCENTAGE
(%)OF UNITS OF INFORMATION (U-INFS) PER DISCOURSE TOPIC (DT),
(WITH STANDARD DEVIATIONS) IN RECONSTRUCTED TEXTS
Discourse Topics (DT)
No. of students
mentioning each DT
1. The view of the Earth
TD
LLI
prevailing in the time of

Copernicus (3 U-Infs)
2. Ptolemys view (5 U-Infs)
3. The role and power of the
9
10
5
5
Church (6 U-Infs)
4. Copernicus life and studies
(5 U-Infs)
5. The impact of Columbus
discovery on Copernicus
Mean % of U-Infs per DT in

reconstructed texts
LLI
87
73
1.45
(17)
(21)
TD
60
14
(30)
(19)
38
17
(16)
(14)
63
48
(32)
(18)
53
17
(28)
(28)
2.09**
2.67**
1.59
2.49*
(3 U-Infs)
6. Copernicus research
findings (4 U-Infs)
7. Eventual publication of
Copernicus book (8 U-Infs)
8. World recognition of
Copernicus view (1 U-Inf)
10
6
62
22
(29)
(24)
70
36
(16)
60
(25)
30
(52)
(48)
2.69**
3.03**
1.31
Note:**p < .01 *p < .05.
overall text length in number of words and text informativeness measured by number of U-Infs in the reconstructed texts, r = .83, p < .001.
The eight DTs were also analyzed for quality of information reconstructed in
relation to three semantic categories (Berman, 1997). Eventives reporting on
narrative-type sequential happenings (the bulk of DTs 3, 4), Factuals providing
descriptive information about the circumstances surrounding the events reported
(DTs 1, 2, 5, and 6), and Affectives referring to subjective responses of characters
mentioned in the text (DT 7). Table11.2 shows that narrative-like eventive episodes
(e.g., DT 4, describing events in Copernicus life) were similarly well-recalled by
both groups, as were pieces of information that report affective impact (such as
DT 7, publication of Copernicus book). In contrast, more factual and scientifically
informative topics (such as 2, Ptolemys view, and 5, the effect of Columbus discovery of America) were significantly better recalled by students in the TD group
than by their LLI peers.
Table 11.3 shows a significant difference in number of reconstructed U-Infs
between the TD students compared with their LLI peers, whereas the information
provided by both groups was generally accurate, with hardly any serious errors in
the TD, somewhat more in the LLI group. On the other hand, only three of the 10
TD children made one seriously disrupting error each, as against over half (six) of
the LLI children.
Syntactic Complexity
The third dimension for assessing written language in the reconstructed texts was
interclausal syntactic complexity. Analysis revealed that students in both groups
constructed different types of subordinate clausescomplements, adverbials, and
Table11.3 MEAN NUMBER (WITH STANDARD DEVIATION) OF
RECONSTRUCTED U-INFS AND PERCENTAGE (%)OF ACCURATE
ANDINACCURATE U-INFS OUT OF TOTAL RECONSTRUCTED U-INFS,
BYTDANDLLI STUDENTS (n=10 PER GROUP)
Types of U-Infs
TD
LLI
Z
2.47*
Mean No. of
20.20
13.30
reconstructed U-Infs
(5.51)
(4.14)
Fully accurate U-Infs (%)
98
89
(4)
(13)
U-Infs with minor
inaccuracies (%)
(4)
(4)
Erroneous U-Infs (%)
(4)
(12)
Note:*p < .05.
1.61
.09
1.15
Table11.4 MEAN PERCENTAGE (%)(WITH STANDARD DEVIATION)

OFSYNTACTIC DEPENDENCIES IN THE RECONSTRUCTED TEXTS,
BYTDANDLLI STUDENTS (n=10 PER GROUP)
Syntactic Dependencies
Nested dependencies (%)
Stacking dependencies (%)
TD
LLI
1.06
(1)
2
(1)
1
1.74*
(1)
(1)
Note:*p < .05.
relativesto much the same extent. On the other hand, more complex syntactic
dependencies by means of stacking and nesting of interclausal relations revealed
differences between the two groups, as shown in Table11.4.
Table11.4 shows that, when comparisons were controlled for text length, both
groups of students produced the same overall amount of nested dependencies.
However, Table 11.4 reveals a significant difference in use of stacking dependencies by the TD students compared with their LLI peers; LLI students used these
constructions less frequently.
DISCUSSION
Results of this exploratory study revealed differences between typically developing pre-adolescents and their peers with language/learning difficulties in written
reconstruction of an encyclopedic article. Text length, measured by both words and
clauses, showed LLI children to produce far less written output than their typically
developing peers, even in the relatively scaffolded task of text reconstruction. Text
length is, therefore, a reliable indicator of writing skills at this point in development (see also Scott & Windsor, 2000). The relative difficulty of LLI students in
this respect can be attributed to general cognitive problems such as poor working
memory (Kellogg, 1999) together with specifically language-based difficulties in
producing stretches of written output (Dockrell, 2009; Westby, 2002).
The texts of the two groups of students revealed several similarities in linguistic
expression. There were few violations of simple-clause syntax in either group, the
amount of explicit lexical connectors for linking clauses were similar, there were
no differences in syntactic density as measured by number of words per clause, nor
were there differences in overall amount of subordination.
In contrast, a range of differences were evident between the groups in textual
connectivity. The LLI group typically packaged together fewer clauses in syntactically and discursively motivated units of discourse than their typically developing
peers. They also tended to string single clauses linearly and to avoid hierarchical
syntactic dependencies in combining clauses. The scaffolding provided by the

reconstruction task could account for the larger average number of nearly four
clauses per clause package among the TD students in this study compared with
similar populations in producing original texts in Hebrew (Berman & Nir, 2009b).
Packaging together large chunks of information in a single syntactic envelope is a
cognitively demanding task that requires preplanning and considerable facility with
organizing verbal output, beyond the abilities of younger children in constructing
oral narratives in different languages (Berman & Slobin, 1994; McCabe & Peterson,
1991). Taken together, these findings indicate that the difficulties of LLI students
in achieving textual cohesiveness may derive from poorer cognitive abilities in preplanning and packaging information in complex chunks of linguistic output.
The study revealed a close connection between linguistic skills and discursive
abilities:Not only do LLI students package together less material in a single syntactic chunk, they also reproduce less of the information provided in the original text
than their typically developing peers. The TD students related both to more key
components and to more elaborative details from the source textreflected linguistically in number of clauses reconstructed per discourse unit. Qualitatively, the
types of propositional content reconstructed by participants revealed a marked difference:LLI students related mainly to episodic narrative-like events, and referred
to affective content similarly to their TD peers, but they had difficulty in reconstructing factual or scientific information that relies on external world-knowledge
or integration of the contents of the text as a whole. The LLI group also performed
more poorly on accuracy of their reconstructions, consistently with research on
oral retellings of verbal materials (Compann & Griffith, 1994; Ward-Lonergan,
Liles, & Anderson, 1998). Taken together, these findings demonstrate a complex
interplay of difficulties with memory recall and verbal reconstruction of textual
materials among children with language/learning difficulties.
The reconstruction task proved a useful tool for distinguishing between typically developing students and ones with language/learning difficulties. Recall tasks
have been used in studying text comprehension of college students (e.g., Britton et
al., 1982; Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978) and oral narrative retellings of younger children (Cameron, Hunt, & Linton, 1988; Stein & Nezworsky, 1978; Stein & Glenn,
1979). However, they have served only marginally as a means of evaluating written
language skills (but see Sandbank, 2004; Silva et al., 2010). The present study sheds
light on text reconstruction as a complex cognitive process, and a largely neglected
window on later language development and writing abilities among both TD and
LLI students at different age/schooling levels. The methodology should be further
extended to compare students writing performance with their reading comprehension as a related skill, since reading and writing are two deeply interdependent
activities (Olson, 2006, p. 137).
Finally, the study points to the value of multilevel analyses that combine conceptual factors of thematic content and informativeness, linguistic expression, and textual cohesiveness, to examine the nature of language/learning impairment beyond
middle childhood. Directions for further research include:extending the investigation to larger groups of participants for more in-depth diagnostic purposes and statistical applications; addition of other areas of analysis such as spelling, lexicon, and
clause-internal syntax; comparing reconstruction skills in nonencyclopedic texts,
such as narratives or even poetry; and specification of individual profiles to pinpoint
particular areas of language/learning difficulties. Such procedures would supplement
this exploratory study in distinguishing linguistically specific from more general
learning difficulties, as an important basis for effective clinical assessment and devising classroom interventions among children with language/learning difficulties.
NOTES
1. Additional measures of lexical and grammatical abilities used in analyzing childrens original text construction abilities (for English, see Nir etal., 2008; for Hebrew, see Berman
etal., 2011)appeared less suited to a reconstruction taskparticularly in an exploratory
study such as the present.
2. The study reported here represents the initial stage of a larger piece of research now under
way.
3. The (highly centralized) Israeli school system has no officially accepted tool for diagnosing language/learning impairment. Instead, around 10% to 15% of middle-school students with observed learning difficulties are referred to remedial teaching on the basis
of (often privately obtained) evaluations of psychologists, special-education teachers, or
speech-therapists trained as didactic evaluators.
4. The Hebrew-language text was originally published in a young peoples periodical named
Inyan Chadash Current Interest (May 1988), and reproduced in a textbook of reading
comprehension for middle-school students used in the past but not currently (Mutzafi &
Shachar, 1990).
5. Grateful thanks to Dr. Irit Katzenberger, Director, Department of Speech Pathology,
Hadassah College, Jerusalem, for her help in this matter.
6. Hebrew conventions distinguish between the general term for word (mila) and a written word (teva). The latter includes seven grammatical morphemes that are orthographically prefixed to the word that follows, all separate words in English and other European
languages: the definite article ha- the, the high-frequency conjunctions ve- and, ethat, and the four basic prepositions le- to, be- in, at, me- from, and ke- like, as.
Hebrew words are often synthetically inflected, so more condensed than their English
counterparts. Compare the string li-x-e-ti-gmer-uliterally to-as-that, 2ND MASC-finish,
FUT,PLUR = when you (Plural) will-finishwritten as single word; or ve-ba-bker and-inthe-morningfour words in English but one written word in Hebrew (Ravid, 2011).
REFERENCES
Beard, R., Riley, J., Myhill, D., & Nystrand, M. (Eds.) (2009). The SAGE handbook of writing
development. London:Sage Publications.
Berman, R. A. (1997). Narrative theory and narrative development: The Labovian impact.
Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7, 235244.
Berman, R.A. (2008). The psycholinguistics of text construction. Journal of Child Language,
35, 735771.
Berman, R.A. (2009). Research on narrative development. In S. Foster-Cohen (Ed.), Advances
in language acquisition (pp. 294318). Bastingstoke, England:Palgrave-Macmillan.
Berman, R.A., & Nir, B. (2009a). Cognitive and linguistic factors in evaluating expository text
quality:Global versus local? In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive
linguistics (pp. 421440). Amsterdam, Netherlands:John Benjamins.
Berman, R. A., & Nir, B. (2009b). Clause-packaging in narratives: A crosslinguistic developmental study. In J. Guo, E. Lieven, S. Ervin-Tripp, N. Budwig, S. zalikan, & K.
Nakamura (Eds.), Cross-linguistic approaches to the psychology of language:Research in the
tradition of Dan I.Slobin (pp. 149182). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
Berman, R.A., & Nir, B. (2010). The lexicon in speech-writing differentiation:Developmental
perspectives. Written Language & Literacy, 13, 181203.
Berman, R.A., & Nir, B. (2011). Spoken and written language across the school years. In D.
Aram & O. Korat (Eds.), Literacy and language:Interactions, bilingualism and difficulties
(pp. 211229). Jerusalem:Magnes Press. [in Hebrew]
Berman, R.A., Nayditz, R., & Ravid. D. (2011). Linguistic diagnostics of written texts in two
school-age populations. Written Language & Literacy, 14, 161187.
Berman, R.A., & Ravid, D. (2009). Becoming a literate language user:Oral and written text
construction across adolescence. In D. R.Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of literacy (pp. 92111). Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.
Berman, R.A., & Ravid, D. (2010). Interpretation and recall of proverbs in three school-age
population. First Language, 30, 129.
Berman, R.A., & Slobin, D. (1994). Relating events in narrative:Across-linguistic developmental
study. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Berman, R. A., & Verhoeven, L. (Eds.) (2002). Cross-linguistic perspectives on development of text production abilities in speech and writing. Written Language & Literacy, 5,
Numbers 1 and 2.
Boscolo, P. (1990). The construction of expository text. First Language, 10, 217230.
Boscolo, P., & Cisotto, L. (1999). Instructional strategies for teaching to write: a Q-sort analysis. Learning and Instruction, 9, 209221.
Boscolo, P., Gelati, C., & Galvan, N. (2012). Teaching elementary school students to play with
meanings and genre. Reading & Writing Quarterly:Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 28,
2950.
Britton, B.K., Glynn, S.M., Meyer, B.J. F., & Penland, M.J. (1982). Effects of text structure on
cognitive capacity during reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 5161.
Britton, B. K. (1994). Understanding expository text: Building mental structure to induce
insights. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.). Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 641674).
NewYork, NY:Academic Press.
Cameron, C.A., Hunt, A., & Linton, M.J. (1988). Medium effects of childrens story rewriting
and story retelling. First Language, 8, 318.
Compann, K.S. P., & Grifith, P.L. (1994). Event and story structure recall by children with specific learning disabilities, language impairment, and normally achieving children. Journal
of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 231248.
Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction:Anational survey. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 100, 907919.
Dockrell, J. E. (2009). Causes of delays and difficulties in the production of written text. In
Beard, R., Riley, J., Myhill, D., & Nystrand, M. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of writing development (pp. 489505). London:Sage Publications.
Gillam, R., & Johnston, J. (1992). Spoken and written language relationships in language learning impaired and normally achieving school-age children. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research, 35, 13031315.
Giora, R. (1985). A text-based analysis of non-narrative texts. Theoretical Linguistics, 12,
115132.
Giora, R. (1990). On the so-called evaluative material in informative text. Text, 4, 299231.
Grabe, W. (2002). Narrative and expository macro-genres. In A. M.Johns (Ed.), Genre in the
classroom:Multiple perspectives (pp. 249268). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
Graesser, A., & Goodman, S. (1985). Implicit knowledge, question answering, and the representation of expository text. In B. Britton & J. B.Black (Eds.), Understanding expository
text (pp. 109171). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (2005). Writing better:effective strategies for teaching students with
learning difficulties. Baltimore, MD:Brookes.
Graham, S., MacArthur, C. A., & Fitzgerald, J. (2007). Best practices in writing instruction.
NewYork:Guilford Press.
Kellogg, R.T. (1999). Components of working memory in text production. In M. Torrance
& G. Jeffery (Eds.), The cognitive demands of writing (pp. 143161). Amsterdam,
Kellogg, R.T. (2008). Training writing skills:Acognitive developmental perspective. Journal
of Writing Research, 1, 126.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T.A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production.
Psychological Review, 85, 363394.
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia, PA:University of Pennsylvania Press.
Mackie, C., & Dockrell, J. E. (2004). The nature of written language deficits in children with
SLI. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 14691483.
Malvern, D.D., Richards, B.J., Chipere, N., & Durn, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language
development:Quantification and assessment. NewYork, NY:Palgrave Macmillan.
Matthiessen, C., & Thompson, S.A. (1988). The structure of discourse and subordination.
In J. Haiman & S. A.Thompson (Eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse (pp.
275330). Amsterdam, Netherlands:John Benjamins.
McCabe, A., & C. Peterson (Eds.) (1991). Developing narrative structure. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Mutzafi, R., & Shachar, M. (1990). Ma Hakesher? Ma Hapesher? Whats the Connection? Whats
the Point? Tel Aviv, Israel:Reches Publishing [in Hebrew].
Nippold, M.A., & Scott, C.M. (Eds.) (2010). Expository discourse in children, adolescents, and
adults:Development and disorders. NewYork, NY:Taylor & Francis.
Nir, B., Bar-Ilan, L., & Berman, R. A. (2008). Vocabulary development across adolescence:Text-based analyses. In A. Stavans & I. Kupferberg (Eds.), Studies in language and
language education (pp. 4774). Jerusalem, Israel:Magnes Press.
Olson, D.R. (2006). Oral discourse in a world of literacy. Research in the Teaching of English,
41, 137147.
Ravid, D. (2011). Spelling morphology:The psycholinguistics of Hebrew spelling. Berlin:Springer
Verlag.
Ravid, D., Avivi-Ben Zvi, G., & Levie, R. (1999). Derivational morphology in SLI children:structure and semantics of Hebrew nouns. In M. Perkins & S. Howard (Eds.), New
directions in language development and disorders (pp. 3949). NewYork, NY:Plenum.
Ravid, D., & Saban, R. (2008). Syntactic and meta-syntactic skills in the school
years: A developmental study in Hebrew. In A. Stavans & I. Kupferberg (Eds.),
Language education in Israel:Papers in honor of Elite Olshtain (pp. 75110). Jerusalem,
Israel:Magnes Press.
Ravid, D., & Tolchinsky, L. (2002). Developing linguistic literacy: A comprehensive model.
Sandbank A. (2004). Writing narrative text: A developmental and crosslinguistic study.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation):Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Scott, C.M. (2004). Syntactic ability in children and adolescents with language and learning
disabilities. In R. A.Berman (Eds.), Language development across childhood and adolescence (pp. 111134). Amsterdam, Netherlands:John Benjamins.
Scott, C. M., & Windsor, J. (2000). General language performance measures in spoken and
written narratives and expository discourse of school-age children with language learning disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 324339.
Shany, M., Lachman, D., Shalem, T., Bahat, A., &, Zieger, T. (2006). Test Battery for diagnosing impairments in reading and writing processes by Israeli norms. Tel Aviv, Israel:Yesod
Publishing. [in Hebrew]
Silva, M.L., Abchi, V.S., & Borzone, A. (2010). Subordinated clauses usage and assessment
of syntactic maturity:Acomparison of oral and written retellings in beginning writers.
Journal of Writing Research, 2, 4764.
Stein, N. L., & Glenn, C. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary
school children. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing, Vol. 2
(pp.53120). Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
Stein N.L., & Nezworsky T. (1978). The effect of organization and instructional set on story
memory. Discourse Processes, 1, 177193.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.
van Dijk, T. A. (1979). Recalling and summarizing complex discourse. In W. Burghardt &
K.Holker (Eds.), Text processing. Berlin, Germany:de Gruyter.
Vincent, J. (2006) Children writing:multimodality and assessment in the writing classroom.
Literacy, 40, 5157.
Ward-Lonergan, J. M., Liles, B.Z., & Anderson, A.M. (1998). Listening comprehension and
recall abilities in adolescents with languagelearning disabilities and without disabilities
for social studies lectures. Journal of Communication Disorders 1, 132.
Westby, C. (2002). Beyond decoding:Critical and dynamic literacy for students with dyslexia,
language learning disabilities (LLI), or attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHA)
In K. G.Butler & E. R.Silliman (Eds.), Speaking, reading, and writing in children with
language learning disabilities (pp. 73107). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
Zarif, S. (2005). Oral narratives of 5th graders from three different populations. (Unpublished masters thesis). Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. [in Hebrew]
APPENDIX
SOURCE TEXT TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH
Copernicus
Copernicus was born in Poland over five hundred years ago. In those days, most
people thought that our Earth was as flat as a table. They thought that whoever went
as far as the edge of the Earthwould fall off. There lived in Egypt two thousand
years ago a famous man of science, whose name was Ptolemy, who thought that the
world was round, although he, too, was certain that the Earth did not rotate on its
own axis. Ptolemy said that if the Earth were to spin like a top, a terrible wind would
arise that would blow people straight from the Earth into Space. He did not know
that the air rotates together with the earth.
In those days, the Christian priests had great power. Whoever did not believe
in what they believed in was condemned to death by fire or torture. The priests
believed that the Earth was unmoving, and that the Earth was the center of the
world. They said:Whoever thinks otherwise does not believe in God. Copernicus
thought otherwise.
Copernicus studied mathematics and astronomy at the University of Cracow.
But this was not enough for him, and so he moved to Italy, where he studied medicine, religion, and philosophy. He even reached the position of being the head of
the Church in the Polish city of Frauenburg, where he continued to work in medicine. But watching the stars was his favorite occupation. When Copernicus was
aged about nineteen, Columbus discovered America. This was the first proof that
the world is round. Copernicus then decided to conduct research in order to find
the truth about the world.
After many years of intensive work, he found that the earth is not only round,
but that it also rotates on its own axis and, moreover, that the moon revolves around
the Earth, while the Earth is a planet that revolves around the sun. Copernicus sat
and wrote a book explaining all the wonderful things he had discovered. But he was
afraid to publish his book. For 33years, Copernicus concealed his book without
publishing it. Only when he was old and close to death, he decided to reveal the
truth to the world, and sent his book to be published. Printing the book lasted a full
two years. Copernicus feared that he would not live to see it, but he did. Afew hours
before his death, a messenger from the publishing house came to his home, showing him the first copy of his book. But many years were to pass before the world
would come to know that Copernicus had been right.
CHAPTER12
Writing Development of
Spanish-English Bilingual Students
withLanguage Learning Disabilities
New Directions in Constructing Individual Profiles
ROBIN L. DANZ AK AND EL AINE R . SILLIM AN
his chapter addresses Spanish-speaking, English Language Learners (ELLs)

in the United States who are sequential bilinguals; that is, oral and written
English is acquired as a second language (L2) at school. Within this population,
substantial variation exists with regard to individual students language and literacy
learning experiences. The specific focus here is the writing patterns of ELLs with
atypical language development, who often present with multiple complexities in
authenticating their language learning profiles in both Spanish and English.
Writing is both a working memory and language process that depends on the
synchronous coordination of the (Berman & Nir-Sagiv, 2007; Berninger, 2009;
Berninger, Garcia, & Abbott, 2009): (a) formulation of words, sentences, and
discourse; (b)transformation of phonological, orthographic, and morphological
knowledge into text; and (c)efficient implementation of executive functions to plan,
review, and revise expression. Writing also conveys social identity, which further
influences how ELLs approach composing for academic purposes (Danzak, 2011a,
2011b; Ortmeier-Hooper, 2007). With rare exception (e.g., Paradis, Emmerzael, &
Duncan, 2010), the social identity of school-age bilinguals with language learning
disabilities (LLD) has not been a focus for understanding individual differences.
In this chapter, we first present an overview of Spanish-speaking ELLs in
U.S.public schools, including the challenges of identifying those with atypical
language development. Next, we provide a brief overview of the few studies on
the writing of ELLs with Language Learning disabilities (hereafter referred to as

ELL-LLD). Finally, we offer two case studies as examples of how individual differences may be explored through a mixed methods profile analysis of ELL-LLD
writing that examines the expression of both literate language and social identity.
Spanish-Speaking ELLs in U.S. Public Schools:Overview
ELLs and programs. In 2009, 21% of U.S.students spoke a language other than
English at home (Aud etal., 2011), with Spanish speakers comprising 73% of these
students (Batalova & McHugh, 2010). More than half of these children (56%) were
born in the United States. Of those born outside the country, the majority (49%)
was also of Hispanic origin, with children from Mexico comprising 32% (Aud, Fox,
& KewalRamani, 2010).
Under the federal English Acquisition Act, students are tested for eligibility for
ELL services when their school registration forms indicate that a language other than
English is spoken at home. States vary in the assessments used to classify and measure
the progress of ELLs; generally, a score below a given proficiency cut-off on English
listening, speaking, reading, and writing will qualify the student for ELL services.
Special education. Another federal law, the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), applies to ELLs who may qualify for special education services when they do not respond as expected to English language and literacy instruction. IDEA requires that ELLs referred for services are tested both in English and
in their first language (L1) to the greatest extent possible. In 2008, approximately
1,000,000 Hispanic students received special-education services nationwide (U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, 2008). Most were
likely classified as having a learning (reading) disability (Aud etal., 2011).
The challenges of identifying ELLs with LLD. Bilingual students struggling
with oral and written language in the classroom may miss out on special education
servicesor obtain services after a significant delaywhereas teachers and service
providers wait for their English language skills to develop (August, Shanahan, &
Escamilla, 2009). Amajor issue is that eligibility criteria vary by state, and these
criteria are not necessarily the same as diagnostic criteria that can reliably differentiate a disability from normal variation (Silliman & Berninger, 2011). Ageneral
clinical definition of atypical language learning is lower-than-expected language
development relative to age in the absence of particular developmental causes (e.g.,
intellectual disability, hearing loss, etc.) (Rice, 2004). Wallach and Butler (1984)
introduced the term LLD to emphasize the linkages between spoken language and
literacy learning. Others (Bishop, 2009; Kohnert, Windsor, & Ebert, 2009)propose that we are confronted with explaining a learning problem, not just a linguistic
problem, a supposition with which we agree. Indeed, population-based longitudinal studies of monolingual English-speaking students with LLD show that the
disability persists for many at the end of their secondary education as reflected in
W r i t i n g D e v e l o p m e n t o f Spa n i s h-E n g l i s h B i l i n g ual S t u d e n ts [ 1 5 9 ]
continuing academic struggles (Conti-Ramsden, Durkin, Simkin, & Knox, 2009),

which include writing (Dockrell, Lindsay, & Palikara, 2011).
ELL-LLD Writing Patterns
A robust literature exists on the writing of monolingual, English-speaking children

with LLD (see Puranik & Otaiba, this volume). In contrast, studies on literacy
especially those on writing instruction and outcomes for ELL-LLDare rare
(August & Siegel, 2006; Graham & Hebert, 2010). The few investigations in this
area (Ruiz, 1995a, 1995b; Ruiz, Vargas, & Beltrn, 2002)were case studies conducted in the elementary grades. These qualitative studies did not examine linkages
between oral and written language or systematically assess substantial quantities of
written texts, but rather focused on instructional strategies. Ruizs (1995a, 1995b)
work did emphasize the importance of understanding individual differences among
ELL-LLD students, as well as how to maximize their diverse strengths through supportive instructional contexts.
Clearly, more extensive research on ELL-LLD writing is needed, particularly
with older students. However, given the diversity of this population, another essential area of inquiry is how to best capture individual profiles of ELL-LLD writers.
We propose that a mixed methods profile analysis has the potential power to capture strengths and challenges of ELL-LLD students.
METHOD
Designing a Mixed Methods Profile Analysis for ELL-LLD
In this section, we extend a previously conducted study of bilingual writing (Danzak,

2011b, 2011c) to explore two cases of ELL-LLD using a mixed-methods profile analysis. Mixed-methods designs integrate the methodologies of both qualitative and
quantitative research, emphasizing a pragmatic (i.e., what works) approach and
the incorporation of various types of data and analyses to best address the research
questions at hand (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). The convergence of qualitative and
quantitative methods results in outcomes that may be strengthened due to mutually
supportive findings, or challenged, in the case of conflicting findings, across the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the study. In many research contexts, including
the multifaceted, dynamic context of a bilingual classroom, mixed-methods designs
provide complementary strengths and nonoverlapping weaknesses of the qualitative
and quantitative methodologies ( Johnson & Turner, 2003).
The Danzak (2011b, 2011c) study was an embedded mixed methods design
(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007) in which qualitative and quantitative data were
collected simultaneously and analyzed sequentially, with an emphasis on the quantitative data. The bilingual writing of 20 ELLs in middle school was examined
within the authentic context of bilingual autobiography. Quantitative outcomes on

lexical, syntactic, and discourse measures of 148 texts (e.g., noun scale by Ravid,
2006, number of different words, mean length of T-unit, and a clausal complexity measure) were compared across languages (Spanish-English) and genres
(expository-narrative). Qualitative analyses were applied to 60 texts and interviews
of a subgroup of six focal participants to explore how language and literacy learning
had shaped their identities as mono- or bilingual writers. The integration of qualitative and quantitative outcomes resulted in student profiles that offered educators
and speech-language pathologists (SLPs) deeper insight into the focal participants
language and literacy resources, strengths, and challenges.
What follows is a translation of the Danzak (2011b, 2011c) mixed methods
approach into a clinical tool for exploring individual differences in composing ability through a profile analysis of two students: Manuel and Daniel (pseudonyms).
A mixed methods triangulation design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007) is applied
here; that is, quantitative and qualitative data are collected and analyzed simultaneously, with equal weight, to develop the profiles. Qualitative data are utilized in
describing the boys histories and identities, and quantitative linguistic measures
are applied to Manuel and Daniels writing to deepen the profile analyses.
QUALITATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS:THE CASE STUDIES
Both students, Manuel and Daniel, are bilingual, teenage boys from working class,
Spanish-speaking families; however, their similarities end there. Manuel, age 14
years (grade 8), from Mexico, struggles with basic composing skills, demonstrating challenges in global text organization, spelling, punctuation, vocabulary, and
morphosyntax. Daniel, age 16 years (grade 10), from Puerto Rico, who has mild
cerebral palsy, has overcome many language and literacy obstacles, but still faces
challenges with academic writing.
Manuel
A tall, quiet young man, Manuel was born in Mexico and moved to the United States
at age 11, when he entered grade 6 and began to learn English. Information about
Manuel, and his bilingual writing samples, were collected when he was 14 years
old and attending grade 8 at a public middle school on the west coast of Florida
(Danzak, 2011b, c). Manuel produced 18 written texts in Spanish and English. As
one of the focal participants, he was also interviewed and completed a questionnaire regarding his language and literacy history and usage.
Both in his writing and his interview, Manuel expressed that he was not happy
living in the United States and that he found learning English difficult, in part
because he did not identify with the U.S.culture:No me puedo acostumbrar aqu
(I cant get used to it here), he stated in his journal. He preferred to use Spanish
for speaking and writing, and considered himself monolingual. However, Manuel
had experience studying an indigenous language, Otomi, in school in Mexico, and
had also been exposed to it through family members. Manuel claimed to understand Otomi but not speak it. Manuel also stated in his interview that, as a Spanish
speaker in the United States, he had experienced language prejudice and that it
made him feel depressed.
By the end of grade 8, Manuel had not been referred for special education eligibility. However, it was clear that he was struggling with writing at a basic level
in both L1 and L2. His texts were extremely short in length, and contained many
errors at the word, sentence, and text levels. His vocabulary consisted mainly of
basic words frequent in the oral language register. On a holistic writing measure
(Quellmalz & Burry, 1983), Manuels texts were generally scored as not at all competent to not very competent. His minimal writing proficiency in English was
also verified by the grade 8 state writing test, on which Manuel scored 2.5 out of
6.0 points.
Daniel
Daniel illustrates the potential that can be achieved for children with disabilities when community, family, and school serve as strong and positive supports
for achievement, and early intervention is secured. Information about Daniel
and his writing were obtained during a three-week writing workshop that he
attended at a university speech, language, and hearing center. At the time of the
workshop, Daniel was16 years old and attending grade 10 at a Florida public
high school dedicated to serving the academic and social needs of students who
required special education. During the workshop, various writing samples were
collected in English and Spanish, and informal interviews were conducted with
Daniel and his mother.
Daniel was born in Puerto Rico at 24 weeks, was diagnosed early on with mild
cerebral palsy, and moved to Florida with his family at age 4years. Today, according to Daniels mother, his disability primarily affects his fine motor skills. His first
language was Spanish and he was an early talker:Speaking in full sentences by the
time he was 11months old. People couldnt believe it, according to his mother.
Daniel has been educated only in English and has excelled in oral language learning. Spanish is regularly spoken at home and Daniel maintains fluent spoken language skills to communicate with his family and community. When asked if he
spoke Spanish with friends, Daniel reported using a mixture of both languages, or
Spanglish.
In spite of his strong oral language skills, Daniel experienced significant difficulty
learning to read and write. During elementary school, he attended self-contained,
special-education classrooms for students with learning disabilities. By grade 3,
Daniel was still demonstrating preschool-level literacy skills. With intensive intervention, he finally began to read and write, catching up to grade-level expectations
by the end of grade 3.Daniel has scored at or above grade level on reading and writing assessments since then.
Currently, Daniel struggles with math, and he has difficulties with spatial relationships. For example, he has directionality problems such that, while shopping,
his mother has to watch him carefully because if he gets lost it will be very hard for
him to find his way back. In writing, Daniel is eager to express his large vocabulary;
however, his sentences are often simple. Planning and organization represent his
biggest challenge, as Daniel has difficulty attending to the task and developing a
coherent text structure. These difficulties in the spatial and organizational realms
suggest that Daniels challenges extend beyond fine motor problems.
QUANTITATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS:THE WRITING ANALYSES
This portion of the profile analysis is based on two narrative texts each composed
by Manuel and Daniel, one in English and one in Spanish. Topics drew on their personal experiences or beliefs (see Appendix). Because Manuels texts were short in
length, two writing samples with related topics for each language were combined.
Manuels combined English topics were Letter to a New Student and My First
Day of School in the U.S., and his combined Spanish topics were My Future and
Three Wishes. Daniels English topic was My Dream Vacation, and his Spanish
topic addressed My Future. Of note, neither boy routinely writes in Spanish at
school as both currently attend English-only programs.
One keystone of a literate register in writing is increased density of lexical and
syntactic items. Density here refers to the elaboration of meanings within noun
phrases and the use of sentence-level, syntactic devices for simultaneous expansion and embedding. Thus, two aspects of density are highlighted in Manuel and
Daniels narrative writing in English and Spanish:elaborated noun phrases (ENPs)
and syntactic complexity.
Lexical Density:ENPs
ENPs increase sentence length (complexity) through pre- and/or postmodification of the head noun, and package attributive information (density) into sentences (Scott & Balthazar, 2010). For example, a simple descriptive noun phrase
such as the talented athlete is not as complex or dense as a descriptive noun
phrase with postmodification: the talented athlete who scored the winning goal
(Eisenberg et al., 2008). Increased sentence informativeness through optional
ENP embedding (Fang, Schleppegrell, & Moore, 2014; Ravid & Berman, 2010):
(a) appears to develop more rapidly during adolescence; (b) is characteristic of
Table12.1 MANUEL AND DANIEL:EXAMPLES OF ELABORATED

NOUN PHRASES (ENPS) BY TOPIC (BASED ON EISENBERG ETAL.,
2008)(NUMBERSIN PARENTHESIS INDICATE FREQUENCY OF
THE ENP TYPE; ORIGINAL SPELLINGS ARE PRESERVED)
Noun English Writing Samples

Phrase
ManuelCombined Daniel
Typea
texts
Spanish Writing Samplesb

Manuel
Combined texts
Daniel
PRE1
(n=5)
(n=1)
(n=12)
(n=8)
this contry
one reason
mi futuro (my
mi sueo (my
the school
future)
my friend
mas casas
(more houses)
dream)
la jente (the
people)
todos los
inmigrantes (all the
PRE2
(n=1)
(n=3)
immigrants)
(n=1)
(n=6)
the first day
a lifelong dream
una barita magica
un deceo fuerte
teachnological
(amagic wand)
advancements
(astrong desire)
serujia intensa
Chinas history
(intensive surgery)
una meta
importante (an
important goal)
PRE3
(n=0)
(n=1)
(n=0)
(n=0)
the brightly colored

POST
(n=7)
buildings
(n=6)
(n=3)
(n=10)
two years righ here in
many remarkable
todos los que
la personalidad
the U.S.A
my familie from
mexico
one student to Guide
forwhome where Igo
disscoveries in
viven en el pueblo
medicalscience
(everyone that lives medico (the perfect
the many
teachnological
in the town)
un deseo para
advances the country
regalar (a wish to
has made
give away)
their ancient forms

ofselfdefense
perfecta para ser

personality to be a
doctor)
la jente que me
ayudaron (the
people that helped
me)
mi pacion para los
estudios medicos
(my passion for
medical studies)
PRE1=Simple designating noun phrase (NP):1 prenoun element + head noun; pre-noun element=determiner, demonstrative, possessive, or quantifier; PRE2=Simple descriptive NP:Determiner + one descriptive element (prenoun) + head noun;
descriptive element=adjective or modifier; PRE3=Complex descriptive NP:Determiner + 2 or more descriptive elements
(prenoun) + head noun; POST=Complex NP with postmodification:Prepositional phrase or clause after the head noun.
a
For the purposes of this analysis, PRE2 and PRE3 include simple, postnoun descriptors in the Spanish texts (los estudios
mdicosmedical studies=PRE2). POST refers only to use of phrases and clauses in noun postmodification in both languages (un deseo para regalara wish to give away; la seora que me ayudthe woman who helped me; both=POST).
b
the specialized vocabularies of science and math; and (c) is a hallmark of more
literate sentence formulation in writing. Therefore, noun-phrase complexity provides a window into advancing meaning-form relationships through dynamic
interactions between the semantic and syntactic systems. When these interactions
are not well coordinated, the outcomes may be a less developed lexicon and less
complex syntax (Scott, 2010).
ENPs in Manuel and Daniels written texts were classified based on Eisenberg
et al. (2008), who examined ENPs in the oral narratives of 40 children ages 5,
8, and 11 years. (For a more in-depth approach to ENP evaluation in written
texts, see Ravid & Berman, 2010.) The frequency of the four ENP categories with
examples from the Manuel and Daniels texts are displayed in Table12.1. Acaveat
in applying any ENP classification system is word-order differences across languages. Like English, Spanish determiners, demonstratives, and quantifiers generally occur in the prenoun position (los libros, este libro, algunos libros; the books,
this book, some books); however, possessives may occur either pre- or postnoun
(mis libros, los libros mos; my books). In contrast to English, Spanish descriptive
elements (adjectives), in most cases, occur postnoun (el libro azul, un libro muy
interesante; the blue book, a very interesting book). Such examples were classified
as descriptive noun phrases, like their semantic equivalents in English, rather than
postmodifications.
Considering the number of ENPs in each category and the various examples, it
appears that Manuels writing included primarily simple designating noun phrases
(NPs) (especially in Spanish) as well as some complex NPs with postmodification
(more so in English). Daniels writing, on the other hand, demonstrated more variety (especially in Spanish), with more simple descriptive NPs and many, complex
NPs with postmodification that also involved prenoun modification. Based on
these patterns, and across both languages, Manuel seemed to lag in lexical density
whereas, for Daniel, it appeared to be a strength.
Syntactic Density:Clausal Complexity
To explore the syntactic density of Manuel and Daniels writing, two traditional
measures were applied first:mean length of T-unit (MLTU) and a clause density
ratio (CDR). Results are shown in Table 12.2. The combination of MLTU and
CDR provides a quantification of sentence complexity that, in some cases, may differentiate the writing of typically developing English monolinguals from those with
LLD (Scott & Balthazar, 2010); however, as these authors note, caution should be
taken as these metrics do not reflect the sophistication of individual clauses.
As shown in Table 12.2, in both languages, Manuel demonstrated a greater
MLTU and CDR than did Daniel. This pattern occurred in Spanish despite Daniels
compositions consisting of more than double the total number of T-units. Thus, it
appears that, overall, Manuel wrote longer sentences (as measured by MLTU) that
Table12.2 COMPARISON OF MANUEL AND DANIELS BILINGUAL WRITING

AS MEASURED BY TOTAL WORDS, TOTAL T-UNITS, MEAN LENGTH T-UNIT
(MLTU) AND A CLAUSE DENSITY RATIO (CDR) a
Text Language
Syntactic Measure
English
Spanish
Manuel
Daniel
Total Words
Total T-Units
173
12
129
11
MLTU
14.4
11.7
CDR
2.25
1.73
Total Words
136
199
Total T-Units
18
17.0
3.0
11.1
1.17
MLTU
CDR
T-unit=a main clause and any subordinate clauses connected to it (Hunt, 1970). MLTU=total number of words
divided by number of T-units, is a measure of sentence length or text productivity. CDR=total number of independent and subordinate clauses divided by number of T-units, is a ratio of subordinated to nonsubordinated clauses.
a
included more subordinate clauses (as assessed by CDR), whereas Daniel preferred
formulating shorter sentences with fewer embedded instances.
Manuel. In the English texts, an example of Manuels attempt at syntactic density is: I like (a) to say to one student of mi contry (b) in this contry is not the
sime (c) because is alot of stuff so much different right here in the U.S. (main verb is
italicized). This sentence, which mirrors talking, contains two nominal clauses in
the object position (a, b) and, within (b), an adverbial-causal clause (c), consistent
with a more advanced clause combining strategy that allows multiple depths of subordination (Scott, 2010). Manuel also attempted a complex ENP here, using both
prenoun (alot of) and postmodification (so much different. . . ). However, at both
the syntactic and lexical levels, his strategy use is offset by obvious difficulties with
English word order and verb morphology, such as the omission of auxiliary verbs
and obligatory subject pronouns (which are optional in Spanish). Misspellings are
also apparent and primarily involve the orthographic component, for example, letter-sound misapplications (e.g., mi for my, wos for was) and absence of word boundaries (e.g., useto, canbe), which can indicate parsing issues.
In the Spanish texts, Manuels writing showed fewer morphosyntactic errors,
more grammatical appropriateness, and increased variation in verb morphology
in sentences that also contained multiple embedding levels. An example is: y
(a)situbiera un deseo mas desearia (b)que todos los inmigrantes tubieran papele
(c)paraque no sufran (d)crusando el desierto- and (a)if Ihad one more wish
I would wish (b) that all immigrants would have papers (c) so that they would
not suffer (d)crossing the desert. At a semantic level, this complex construction
includes generic, impersonal reference to classes of people and objects (Berman
& Nir-Sagiv, 2007, p.81), i.e., immigrants, papers, which is more characteristic of
expository writing. At a syntactic level, it contains a conditional adverbial clause

(a) and a nominal object clause (b) with deeper embedding: (1) an adverbial
clause of purpose (c), described in Spanish grammar as an oracin final (Gili
Gaya, 1972), which necessarily contains a verb in the subjunctive mood; and
(2)within this, an adverbial temporal headed by a gerund (d). Unlike the English
example, Manuels morphosyntax here is grammatically appropriate combined
with glimpses of the semantic ability to construct a more literate register. There
are numerous misspellings, however, comparable to the orthographic patterns of
the English texts.
Daniel. In English, Daniel demonstrated appropriate knowledge of morphosyntax co-occurring with less embedding depth than Manuel. As this example demonstrates, Daniels complexity strategies relied on ENPs that also were characteristic of
the more general and objective lexical references found in expository writing:but
I know (a) that they have made many remarkable disscoveries in medical science.
There is one nominal object clause (a)with Daniels lexical strengths manifested
by a complex ENP that included both prenoun (many remarkable) and postmodifications (in medical science). Of interest, Daniel demonstrated some command of
derivational morphology throughout his writing, for example, remarkable, discoveries, technologically. His misspellings generally reflected orthographic uncertainty
about letter doubling, a challenge that Daniel attributed in his interview to learning
Spanish before English (letter doubling is infrequent in Spanish spelling).
Daniels Spanish texts illustrated a similar complexity strategy. Most sentences
contained only one subordinate clause; however, an example of a two-level embedding did occur:Yo se (a)que yo voy a ser el mejor medico (b)que pueda serI
know (a)that Iam going to be the best doctor (b)that Ican be. Here, a nominal
clause is present in the object position (a)and, embedded within it, a relative clause
(b). Both clauses demonstrate correct verb morphology, including the use of the
subjunctive mood in the second clause. Additionally, this sentence shows Daniels
ability to transfer lexical complexity via ENPs with both pre- (el mejor) and postmodifications (que pueda ser).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Manuel and Daniel:What We Have Learned?
In this chapter, we have presented a mixed methods profile analysis of two cases of
struggling bilingual writers, Manuel and Daniel. These students strengths and challenges in writing in both Spanish and English texts were illuminated by:(a)qualitative exploration of interviews, case histories, and linguistic density strategies;
and (b)quantitative examination of lexical density (through ENPs) and syntactic
density (through MLTU and CDR). The goal was to demonstrate how this sort of
profile analysis might provide a deeper understanding of individual differences in
writing to enhance clinical and instructional interventions for ELLs with LLD.
Manuel. At a superficial level, Manuel appeared to lack linguistic density

in both languages. Upon deeper analysis, he demonstrated glimmerings of
expository-style reference and sophisticated syntactic use through multiple,
embedded clauses in Spanish, which he attempted to transfer to his L2 writing.
However, due to his inexperience and lack of confidence with English and, perhaps, nonsystematic instructional targeting of his multilevel needs, these efforts
were characterized by errors in word order, morphosyntax, and spelling. Manuel
is an excellent example of an academically struggling ELL who may appear, on
the surface, to manifest characteristics of LLD in English (e.g., morphosyntactic
errors), but shows the potential to rise to the occasion when assessed in L1. As a
consequence, any speculation that Manuel manifests LLD must be tempered until
more information is obtained.
However, the imbalance that Manuel displayed between low content elaboration
and higher levels of syntactic complexity in both languages is consistent with recent
findings on variations in the quality of English oral narratives (Colozzo, Gillam,
Wood, Schnell, & Johnston, 2011) that occur when processing demands affect
the coherence of story generation. Obviously, Manuels level of meta-awareness
requires more support, as well as increased motivation and confidence on his
part, to develop his academic English skills, in particular, in the conceptual-lexical
domain. Additionally, the content of Manuels writing revealed a sensitive young
man who was experiencing significant struggles with both language learning and
his identity as a Spanish-speaking immigrant (for details, see Danzak, 2011b). For
Manuel to embrace academic English language learning, he must have opportunities to participate in supportive contexts where he is a valued as a successful member of the academic language community.
Daniel. Daniels profile varied greatly from Manuels, both qualitatively and
quantitatively. He was successful in transferring his lexical strengths via complex ENP use from English, his language of schooling, to Spanish, a language
that he often speaks but rarely writes. Hence, Daniels portrait is consistent
with the second profile of narrative generation that Colozzo etal. (2011) identifiedstrong content elaboration and lower levels of syntactic complexity.
Based on MLTU and CDR outcomes, Daniel should be responsive to instruction in sentence combining (Silliman & Scott, 2009), using materials from various academic subject areas (Scott & Balthazar, 2010), to further develop his
meta-awareness about syntactic density. Spelling instruction, especially learning orthographic patterns for letter doubling, would also build Daniels writing
confidence in English.
In contrast to Manuel, Daniel considers himself bilingual, and self-identifies as
a successful participant in the English-speaking, literate community. Daniels confidence in his potential for academic achievement is evident in his My Future
text, in which he expresses his desire to become an outstanding physician who
will revolutionize medical practices. His motivation is evident in that his favorite
class is science. When writing, however, Daniel described himself as lazy:easily
distracted and bored when composing. These factors may be outcomes of attentional and inhibitory issues that disrupt his planning abilities.
Since text composition skills extend beyond the language domain, both Daniel
and Manuel would benefit from cognitive strategy instruction to build their knowledge about how to orchestrate narrative and expository composition more effectively. The processing load of expository writing on executive functions appears
higher for sequential bilinguals than for monolinguals due to less familiarity with
the L2 (Graves & Rueda, 2009). Processing demands can also increase when there
is less awareness of and facility with the multiple levels of the academic language
register (Wilkinson & Silliman, 2008). In either case, heavier processing demands
can result in less flexible deployment of attentional resources during composition;
hence, it is also essential for students like Manuel and Daniel to be explicitly taught
about text organization and structure as well as genre-specific, cognitive strategies
for writing.
Benefits of Mixed Methods Profile Analysis
A mixed methods profile analysis can capture variation in students writing experiences, resources, and challenges, providing deep understandings of linguistic
strengths and needs. It is also consistent with the growing recognition that
individual differences can only emerge from assessment of multiple domains,
including the cognitive, linguistic, and social domains (Colozzo et al., 2011;
Silliman & Berninger, 2011). For example, with regard to linguistic density,
Manuel and Daniel demonstrated that there were different ways to construct
complexity in writing. Manuels strength lies in sentence combining, whereas
Daniel excels with complex ENPs. Both boys showed evidence of cross-language
transfer (each in their area of strength), from their more-dominant language to
their less-dominant one. Overall, this snapshot of a mixed-methods profile analysis suggests that assessing writing in both languages, examining text features
at various levels, and exploring qualitative dataincluding text contentcan
offer educators and SLPs a more complete picture, including the strengths, of a
struggling ELL writer.
To support these teens emerging identities, it is important that instruction/
intervention take place in a way that is culturally relevant and personally meaningful to the students. Indeed, writing, like literacy and learning in general, is not only a
cognitive and linguistic task, but also a socio-cultural practice that occurs for a given
audience and purpose in a given context. As an integration of language and identity,
students written texts serve as maps that depict the hills and valleys of their lives.
To support the academic language and literacy development of ELL-LLD, we must
be willing to explore their maps and co-create them as students journey into new
roles as competent and confident participants in the literate community.
REFERENCES
Aud, S., Fox, M., & KewalRamani, A. (2010). Status and trends in the education of racial and
ethnic groups (NCES 2010-015). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.
Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., & Tahan, K. (2011). The condition of education 2011 (NCES 2011-033). U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.
August, D., Shanahan, T., & Escamilla, K. (2009). English language learners: Developing
literacy in second-language learnersReport of the National Literacy Panel on
Language-Minority Children and Youth. Journal of Literacy Research, 41, 432.
August, D., & Siegel, L. (2006). Literacy instruction for language-minority children in special education settings. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in
second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority
Children and Youth (pp. 523554). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
Batalova, J., & McHugh, M. (2010). Top languages spoken by English language learners nationally
and by state. Washington, D.C.:Migration Policy Institute.
Berman, R.A., & Nir-Sagiv, B. (2007). Comparing narrative and expository text construction
across adolescence:Adevelopmental paradox. Discourse Processes, 43, 79120.
Berninger, V. W. (2009). Highlights of programmatic, interdisciplinary research on writing.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 6980.
Berninger, V.W., Garcia, N.P., & Abbot, R.D. (2009). Multiple processes that matter in writing
assessment and instruction. In G. A.Troia (Ed.), Instruction and assessment for struggling
writers (pp. 1550). NewYork:Guilford Press.
Bishop, D.V. M. (2009). Specific language impairment as a language learning disability. Child
Language Teaching and Therapy, 25, 163165.
Colozzo, P., Gillam, R.B., Wood, M., Schnell, R.D., & Johnston, J.R. (2011). Content and
form in the narratives of children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech,
Conti-Ramsden, G., Durkin, K., Simkin, Z., & Knox, E. (2009). Specific language impairment
and school outcomes. I:Identifying and explaining variability at the end of compulsory
education. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 44, 1535.
Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Danzak, R. L. (2011a). Defining identities through multiliteracies: ELL teens narrate their
immigration experiences as graphic stories. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 55,
187196.
Danzak, R.L. (2011b). The interface of language proficiency and identity:Aprofile analysis of
bilingual adolescents and their writing. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,
42, 506519.
Danzak, R.L. (2011c). The integration of lexical, syntactic, and discourse features in bilingual
adolescents writing:An exploratory approach. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 42, 491505.
Dockrell, J. E., Lindsay, G., & Palikara, O. (2011). Explaining the academic achievement at
school leaving for pupils with a history of language impairment: Previous academic
achievement and literacy skills. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 27, 223237.
Eisenberg, S.L., Ukrainetz, T.A., Hsu, J.R., Kaderavek, J.N., Justice, L.M., & Gillam, R.B.
(2008). Noun phrase elaboration in childrens spoken stories. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 39, 145157.
Fang, Z., Schleppegrell, M.J., & Moore, J. (2014). The linguistic challenge of learning across
disciplines. In C. A.Stone, E. R.Silliman, B. J.Ehren, & G. P.Wallach (Eds.), The
handbook of language and literacy (2nd ed.) (pp. 302322). NewYork:Guilford Press.
Gili Gaya, S. (1972). Curso superior de sintaxis espaola (10th ed.). Barcelona:Biblograf.
Graham, S., & Hebert, M. A. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve
reading. A Carnegie Corporation Time to Act Report. Washington, DC: Alliance for
Excellent Education.
Graves, A. W., & Rueda, R. (2009). Teaching written expression to culturally and linguistically diverse learners. In G. A.Troia (Ed.), Instruction and assessment for struggling writers:Evidence-based practices (pp. 213242). NewYork:Guilford Press.
Hunt, K.W. (1970). Syntactic maturity in school children and adults. Monographs of the Society
for Research in Child Development, 35(1, Serial No. 134).
Johnson, B., & Turner, L.A. (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. In
A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral
research (pp. 297320). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Kohnert, K., Windsor, J., & Ebert, K.D. (2009). Primary or specific language impairment and
children learning a second language. Brain and Language, 109, 101111.
Ortmeier-Hooper, C. M. (2007). Beyond English language learner: Second language writers, academic literacy, and issues of identity in the united states high school. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, University of New Hampshire, United StatesNew Hampshire.
(Publication No. AAT 3277145)
Paradis, J., Emmerzael, K., & Duncan, T. S. (2010). Assessment of English language learners: Using parent report on first language development. Journal of Communication
Disorders, 43, 474497.
Quellmalz, E.S., & Burry, J. (1983). Analytic scales for assessing students expository and narrative writing skills. CSE Resource Paper No. 5.Center for the Study of Evaluation, UCLA
Graduate School of Education. Los Angeles, CA.
Ravid, D. (2006). Semantic development in textual contexts during the school years: Noun
scale analyses. Journal of Child Language, 22, 791821.
Ravid, D., & Berman, R. A. (2010). Developing noun phrase complexity at school
age:Atext-embedded cross-linguistic analysis. First Language, 30, 326.
Rice, M.L. (2004). Growth models of developmental language disorders. In M. L.Rice, &
S. F. Warren (Eds.), Developmental language disorders: From phenotypes to etiologies
(pp. 207240). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.
Ruiz, N.T. (1995a). The social construction of ability and disability:I.Profile types of Latino
children identified as language learning disabled. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28,
476490.
Ruiz, N.T. (1995b). The social construction of ability and disability:II. Optimal and at-risk
lessons in a bilingual special education classroom. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28,
491502.
Ruiz, N.T., Vargas, E., & Beltrn, A. (2002). Becoming a reader and writer in a bilingual special
education classroom. Language Arts, 79, 297309.
Scott, C.M. (2010). Assessing expository texts produced by school-age children and adolescents. In M. A.Nippold, & C. M.Scott (Eds.), Expository discourse in children, adolescents, and adults (pp. 191214). NewYork, NY:Psychology Press.
Scott, C.M., & Balthazar, C.H. (2010). The grammar of information:Challenges for older students with language impairments. Topics in Language Disorders, 30, 288307.
Silliman, E.R., & Berninger, V.W. (2011). Cross-disciplinary dialogue about the nature of oral
and written language problems in the context of developmental, academic, and phenotypic profiles. Topics in Language Disorders, 31, 623.
Silliman, E.R., & Scott, C. (2009). Research-based intervention routes to the academic language
of literacy:Finding the right road. In S. Rosenfield & V. W.Berninger (Eds.), Translating
science-supported instruction into evidence-based practices:Understanding and applying the
implementation process (pp. 107145). NewYork, NY:Oxford University Press.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating
quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand
Oaks:CA:Sage.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) database. (2008). Retrieved from: https://www.
ideadata.org/default.asp.
Wallach, G.P., & Butler, K.G. (1984). Preface. In G. P.Wallach, & K. G.Butler (Eds.), Language
learning disabilities in school-age children (pp. vvii). Baltimore, MD:Williams and Wilkins.
Wilkinson, L.C., & Silliman, E.R. (2008). Academic language proficiency and literacy instruction in urban settings. In L. Wilkinson, L. Morrow & V. Chou (Eds.), Improving literacy
achievement in urban schools: Critical elements in teacher preparation (pp. 121142).
Newark, DE:International Reading Association.
APPENDIX
MANUEL AND DANIELS WRITING SAMPLES, SEGMENTED INTO
T-UNITS * (Original Spellings and Punctuation Preserved)
Manuel
A. English Combined Texts:Letter to ANew Student, My First Day of School in the U.S.
1. Ilike to say to one student of mi contry in this contry is not the sime because
is alot of stuff so much different right here in the U.S.A.
2. and Ilike to tell hem may by hi cant get useto like me.
3. still cant get useto very good. even though Ihave two years right here in the U.S.A.
4. maybe you miss so much your familie from mexico because they canbe far.
5. Im stil miss my familie from mexico. Because every day Ithynk them.
6. me when Icome to the U.S.A and come to the school the first day wos so
much nervous because Idont now anybody.
7. and then thy take me to the office because they present me one student to
Guide for whom where Igo.
8. and then He shome the clases.
9. so he is now my frend.
10. He is a good frend with me.
11. and then Ithink that Im nerbes.
12. is not good for me becaust suner or later Iwas goin to be leess nervous.
*Numbers represent T-units, a main clause and any subordinate clauses connected to it
(Hunt, 1970). Due to linguistic differences, T-units may be segmented differently from Hunts
traditional description when comparing English and Spanish texts (See Danzak, 2011c, for
explanation and illustration).
B. Spanish Combined Texts:My Future, Three Wishes
1. yo para mi futuro quiero ir a mexico para travajar en mexico.

2. tambien planeo ayudar a mi pueblo para que se a mejor que los demas porque
ami nunca megusta quedarme atras.
3. Poner una escuela consultar contodos los que viven en el pueblo o poner mas
casas.
4. si yo tubiera una barita magica quisiera que volviera anaser y quitar toda la
pobresa y alludar alos pobres.
5. Tambien quisiera aser qureser a mexico porque nunca quisiera que mi pais se
quede atrs.
6. por eso quiero aser creser a mexico.
7. y situbiera un deseo mas desearia que todos los inmigrantes tubieran papele
paraque no sufran crusando el desierto.
8. si tubiera un deseo para regalar selo regalaria a mi mama por que puede
desiar muchas cosas como en su limpiesa de la casa para que no se canse
mucho.
C. English Translation
Me for my future Iwant to go to mexico to work in mexico. also Iplan to help my

town so that it can be better than the rest because Inever like to be left behind Put
up a school work with everyone who lives in the town or put up more houses if
Ihad a magic wand Iwould want to be born again and remove all the poverty to
help the poor Iwould also want to make mexico grow because Iwould never want
my country to be left behind that is why Iwant to make mexico grow. and if Ihad
one more wish Iwould wish that all immigrants had papers so that they would not
suffer crossing the desert if Ihad one wish to give away Iwould give it to my mom
because she might wish for many things like cleaning her house so she doesnt get
too tired.
Daniel
A. English Text:My Dream Vacation
1. Iwould go to China.
2. Iwould take my mom, my dad, my Grampa, and [sister].
3. One reason Iwould like to go to china is to look at the many teachnological
advances the country has made.
4. Iwould like to learn about their ancient forms of self defense.
5. Ido not know too much about china.
6. but I know that they have made many remarkable disscoveries in medical
science.
7. If Igo to China Iwould have achieved a lifelong dream.
8. When Isee pictures of China Iimagine the brightly colored buildings.
9. Iimagine directing the history behind the country.
10. Icould not leave Chine without seing the Great Wall of China.
11. Chinas history and teachnological advancements is the main reasson for why
Iwould go to China.
B. Spanish Text:My Future
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Mi sueo siempre acido ser medico.

Los profesonales de medicina a cambiado mi vida.
Yo tengo la personalidad perfecta para ser medico.
Yo quiro ser medico pa acerles un favor a la jente que me ayudaron.
Yo tengo un deceo fuerte para sanar a la jente quando estan en un estado
devil [dbil].
Mi pacion para los estudios medicos empezo en el octavo grado.
Yo me emerce en los estudios medicos despues que me enferme cuatro aos
atras y casce me mori.
Yo nescesitava serujia intensa para salvarme la vida.
Yo estava muy agradecido a la seora que me alludo.
Yo voy a dedicar el ruestro de mi vida a ser un sanador.
Yo tengo una meta importante.
Yo quiero estudiar medicina en [nombre de la universidad].
Yo se que yo voy a ser el mejor medico que pueda ser.
Yo no voy a permitar que nada y nadie me pare.
Yo me estado preparando para hacer me sueo de ser medico una realidad.
Yo voy a dedicar mi vida a hacer excelente como medico.
Yo voy a revoloutionar la manera en la quidan a los pacientes en los
ospitales.
Voy hacer excelente en lo que hago como medico.
C. English Translation
My dream has always been to be a doctor. Medical professionals changed my life. Ihave
the perfect personality to be a doctor. Iwant to be a doctor to do a favor for the people
who helped me. Ihave a strong desire to heal people when they are in a weak state.
Mi passion for medical studies started in the eighth grade. Iwas immersed in
medical studies after Igot sick four years ago and Ialmost died. Ineeded intense
surgery to save my life. Iwas very grateful to the woman who helped me. Iwant to
dedicate the rest of my life to being a healer.
I have an important goal. I want to study medicine at [name of university].
Iknow that Iam going to be the best doctor that Ican be. Iam not going to let
anything and anyone stop me. Ibeen preparing myself to make my dream of being
a doctor a reality. Iam going to dedicate my life to being excelent as a doctor. Iam
going to revolutionize the way in the patients are cared for in hospitals. Iam going
to do excelent in what Ido as a doctor.
CHAPTER13
Written Narratives from French

and English Speaking Children with
Language Impairment
JUDY S. REILLY, JOSIE BERNICOT, THIERRY OLIVE, JOL UZ,
BEVERLY WULFECK , MONIK FAVART, AND M ARK APPELBAUM
ost typically developing children are good speakers of their native language
by about five years of age and, as they enter school, they begin to acquire
its graphic representationwriting. However, children with language impairment
(LI) experience problems in acquiring both spoken and written language and studies that have considered the written language of children with LI have found these
problems to be persistent. But these studies have been limited to children acquiring
English as their first language. To better understand both the process of writing
development and the nature of LI, this chapter investigates the written language
of children with LI and typically developing children acquiring either French or
American English as their native language. To contextualize our writing study, we
first present a brief overview of language impairment and a short comparison of
French and English grammar and their writing systems.
Children with language impairment are typically developing children with no
known neurological, emotional, or hearing problems and yet they demonstrate
significant difficulties in acquiring their native language. The majority of children
who receive a diagnosis of LI as they enter primary school have a documented
history of initial delay in the onset of language and persistent problems in expressive language through the school years, notably with grammatical morphology
(e.g., Fey, Catts, Proctor-Williams, Tomblin, & Zhang, 2004; Leonard, 1998; and
Rice, Wexler, & Cleave, 1995). In addition, some children with LI also exhibit
concomitant problems in receptive language (Leonard, 1998). Although a subset
of children with LI appear to catch up in their spoken language abilities (e.g.,

Bishop & Edmonson, 1987), many continue to show subtle deficits in spoken
language with more severe problems in written language, see for examples the
following studies: Bishop & Clarkson (2003), Dockrell, Lindsay, Connelly, &
Mackie (2007), Gillam & Johnston (1992), and Scott & Windsor (2000). As
noted earlier, the vast majority of such studies, especially on writing, have been
conducted with children and adolescents acquiring English. In this chapter we
compare the written language of children and adolescents with LI who are acquiring French as their first language with those learning English to investigate: (a)
what is common across the LI groups; and (b) the role of the particular language
on the LI profile.
Before we present our study, a brief background on written English and French
will provide background. French is a Romance language whereas English is part
of the Germanic family. French has a highly developed system of inflectional morphology in which nouns are marked for gender (masculine/feminine) and number
(singular or plural) and articles and adjectives agree in both gender and number
with the noun they modify (la petite fille, le petit garon, les petites filles, les petits
garons). Verbs are inflected for number, person, and tense. In addition, the pronominal system is complex, marking person, number and case; object and reflexive
clitics are preverbal. In contrast, English has lost most of its inflectional morphology, although plural is marked for nouns, and verbs have a third person singular s
in the present tense. In English, this impoverished morphology is phonologically
realized, whereas in French, much of the inflectional morphology is silent, posing a
particular challenge for children learning to write.
With respect to written French and English, Modern English results from
a series of historical changes and was strongly influenced by the introduction of
French at the time of the Norman invasion of Britain in the 11th century, thus
English orthography is a composite of different subsystems of spelling (principally Germanic, Norman-French, and Latin-Greek). Both French and English have
deep or opaque orthographies and English has probably one of the most difficult
and complex spelling-to-sound correspondences (see Share, 1995, 2008). In fact,
the major source of spelling difficulties results from the lack of correspondence
between pronunciation of the words and their spelling. However, French also presents difficulties in that the French morphological system is highly complex, and
its inflectional morphology is more or less silent. For example, in class 1 verbs er
verbs, the inflectional endings for first (je parle); second (tu parles); and third person singular (elle, il parle), as well as third person plural (ils, elles parlent) all share
the same pronunciation [parl], however, they have distinct written forms.
To highlight these differences and the challenges posed to beginning writers, we
present the same sentence in French and English:
The little girl met her friend at the caf and then they climbed the hill to go home.
W r i t t e n Na r r at i v e s f r o m C h i l d r e n w i t h L I [ 1 7 7 ]
La petite fille a rencontr sa copine au caf et puis elles sont montes la colline pour aller
chez elle.
(agreement markers for gender and number are underlined)
In summary, our goal is to see how these linguistic differences affect the acquisition of writing in French and English students, both those who are typically
developing and those who are LI, as well as how these profiles change with age and
experience.
THE STUDY
Seventeen French speaking children and adolescents (ages 716) with LI and 31
typically developing (TD) age matched peers provided codable written stories as
did 30 American English speaking participants with LI and 60 TD. In both language communities, children with LI were diagnosed by local speech language
pathologists. To be included in the LI group, the criteria included a significant
language impairment in oral language in the absence of hearing impairment, frank
neurologic deficits (seizure, CP, stroke) or significant social/emotional disorders.
The child must have a nonverbal IQ score above 80, as well as score 1.5 or more
standard deviations below the mean on a standardized language test of oral language (e.g., CELF-R).
To address how growing up in a particular language community affects learning to write, we asked children and adolescents to write a story about a time when
someone had made them mad or sad. After the children had written their stories,
they were given an opportunity to read the story aloud and to edit their texts. Table
13.1 presents example texts from French and English speaking children, both typically developing and from those with language impairment.
In assessing their written narratives we looked at a variety of linguistic indices: the length of their written narratives, the nature and rate of morphological
and spelling errors, and finally, the use and types of complex syntax. Length was
counted as the number of clauses; a clause is defined as a verb and its arguments.
Morphological errors were both errors of commission and omission and included,
for example, errors in number and gender agreement, subject-verb agreement, and
verb tense. The total number of errors was divided by the total number of clauses to
yield a proportion of errors. Complex sentences included, for example, clefts, those
with verb complements, coordinate and subordinate connectors, relative clauses.
Similar to the calculations for morphological errors, the total number of complex
sentences was divided by the number of clauses to create a proportion of complex
syntax. Spelling errors were tallied and the total was divided by the number of
words in the text.
Table13.1 EXAMPLE NARRATIVE TEXTS FROM ENGLISH AND FRENCH

SPEAKING CHILDREN
English Written Narratives
Caroline (TD) 9;0
Sometimes my best friend, Brianna, makes me mad. When we play hand-ball, sometimes Iget her out.
She starts crying and tells a teacher. The teacher tells her to be a good sport and Brianna wont talk to me
the rest of the day. That was last year. Now she rarely get_ mad a me, letalone at hand-ball. When Ido get
her out, she is a good sport but sometimes she passes back the ball a bit harsh__ as if she were silently
fuming.
Laura (LI) 9;1
I drow a picer f for my friend a and it make her fill good.
I drew a picture for my friend and it made her feel good*.
French Written Narratives
Clia (TD) 9;9
Le matin moi et Flavie ont taient copine_ et quand je revien_ laprs midi elle nait ntait plus ma copine.
Elle me dit cest parce-que tu ne joue_ pas avec moi. Je lui rpons que je joue toujours avec elle. Et Flavie
me dit je nai suis plus ta copine. Et Flavie me dit quelle nait plus ma copine.
Coralie (LI) 9;6
Cest un copine et cest bas car avec ma cousine mon anniverser_
Cest une copine qui sest bagarre avec ma cousine mon anniversaire
*Italicized version is what the child read back to the experimenter and is included for clarity. Errors are underlined.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The statistical results reported next are tests of simple effects which, essentially, test
for group differences at specific levels of one or more other factors, for example,
TD-LI differences for French writers. These tests are different from plain t-tests
within subgroups because, in the tests of simple effects, the entire data set, as
opposed to a subset, is used to estimate the error variance and degrees of freedom
for the statistical tests, and the degrees of freedom are generally greater in the test
of simple effects.
Story Length (Clauses)
As can be seen in Figure13.1, in English but not in French, the samples differed
in the length of their stories as measured by the number of clauses. Specifically,
the TD group of English speakers wrote longer stories than the LI group (t=3.61,
df=134, p < . 001), whereas for the French groups, stories did not differ significantly
in length across the two populations. And, as we see in Figure13.2, separating the
16
Number of Clauses
14
TD
LI
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
French: TD = LI
English: TD > LI
Figure13.1.
Length of narratives (number of clauses) as a function of language and group.
18
Number of Clauses
16
TD
LI
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Younger
French
Older
Younger
Older
English
Figure13.2.
Length (number of clauses) as a function of language, age and group (TD, LI).
groups into children (ages 711) and adolescents (1216), does not reveal statistically significant differences in performance by age for any of the four groups, that
is, French TD, French LI, English TD, nor English LI. However, in the typically
developing group of French students, there is a small (t=1.83, df=130, p=.069)
trend toward longer stories in the adolescents than in the younger writers, but small
numbers prevent our being able to make a strong statement.
Morphology
As noted earlier, an important difference in English and French is in inflectional

morphology. To calculate rates of morphological errors (and complex syntax), we
used the number of clauses in each as a denominator to control for varying lengths
of the childrens narratives. As can be seen in Figure 13.3, it appears that the French
morphological system does indeed play an important role in the development of
writing. Looking at Figure 13.3, for both the French and the English speaking children, the LI groups makes significantly more errors than their typically developing
peers; for French writers t = 3.54, df = 134, p < .001 and for English writers t = 2.13,
df = 134, p = .035. In addition, the French writers, both TD and LI groups, make
significantly more morphological errors than their English speaking counterparts t
= 11.57, df = 134, p < .001. As such, the complexity and relative silence of French
morphology clearly pose a challenge for all French students.
However if we again split the groups into younger and older (Figure 13.4), we
see that both the older TD French group (t = 4.37, df = 130, p < .001) and the older
LI French group (t = 2.04, df = 130, p = .043) make markedly fewer morphological
errors than do their younger French counterparts; as such, both typically developing children and those with LI seem to be acquiring the French written system,
but at different rates. For the English speakers, there are no statistically significant
differences between the age groups in error rate: Both younger and older LI groups
make more errors than their TD peers. In sum, we see that age, language, and neurodevelopmental status (TD versus LI) play a role: French students master the written morphology later than their English counterparts, but both French and English
participants with LI continue to struggle with written morphology.
Morphological Error Rate
TD
LI
1.5
1
0.5
0
French: TD < LI
English: TD < LI
0.5
Figure13.3.
Rate of morphological errors as a function of language and group (TD, LI).
Rate of Morphological Errors
2.5
TD
LI
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
Younger
French
Older
Younger
Older
English
Figure13.4.
Rate of morphological errors as a function of language, group and age.
Complex Syntax
Whereas problems in grammatical morphology are a hallmark of LI, studies

have also reported decreased use of complex syntax in narratives (e.g., Reilly et
al., 2004; Scott & Windsor, 2000). To investigate the rate of complex sentences
we calculated the frequency with which children used complex syntax by constructing proportions of complex structures divided by story length in clauses.
Using complex or simple sentences is a rhetorical choice; simple sentences are
perfectly grammatical. However, using complex sentences, for example, makes
explicit the relation between two (or more) events and increases the density
of information. In comparing complex sentence rates, we found that for both
language groups, the LI groups use less complex syntax than the controls; for
French writers, t = 3.16, df = 134, p = .002, for English writers t = 1.96, df = 134,
p = .05. Interestingly, the English speaking groups used relatively more complex
sentences than the French speaking participants (t = 4.40, df = 134, p < .001)
as can be seen in Figure 13.5. Looking across age groups (Figure 13.6), we see
that for both languages the LI adolescents used more complex syntax than their
younger counterparts (for French, t = 2.62, df = 130, p = .010; for English t =
2.26, df = 130, p = .026).
What might explain such differences in syntactic profiles of the French and
English students? According to studies of discourse that have looked at rhetorical styles across languages, English is characterized as one that relies heavily on
hypotaxis or subordination, whereas French tends more toward isotaxis or favoring independent clauses over subordination. Interestingly, both French and English
have a broad repertoire of sentence types; both languages include simple clauses,
coordinate clauses and multiple types of subordination (e.g., clefts, relative and
adverbial clauses). However, data from adult writers show preferences for particular
Rate of Use of Complex Syntax
0.9
0.8
TD
LI
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
French: TD > LI
English: TD > LI
Figure13.5.
Rate of use of complex syntax as a function of language and group (TD, LI).
Rate of Use of Complex Syntax
0.9
0.8
TD
LI
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Younger
French
Older
Younger
Older
English
Figure13.6.
Rate of use of complex syntax as a function of language, age and group (TD, LI).
syntactic constructions (Nir & Berman, 2010); specifically, adult French writers
prefer simple over subordinate clauses whereas English writers use increased subordination. Interestingly, these same preferences of syntactic style are evident in
the childrens writing as well. What is striking is that this feature of how language
is used, that is, the preference for independent or subordinate clauses, is evident in
the LI as well as the TD groups. Thus, it is not only that all these children are learning to write French or English, they are also learning the rhetorical style, in this case,
the syntactic preferences for written language of their linguistic community.
Spelling
Finally we look at spelling in these two languages. Both have opaque writing systems, irregular sound-letter correspondences, and a substantial number of silent
letters. In English, but not in French, (see Figure 13.7) the children with LI make
more errors than their typically developing peers (t = 3.04, df = 134, p = .003),
and in both languages, in both the TD and LI groups, the adolescents make fewer
errors than younger children (see Figure 13.8); for French TD, t = 2.41, p = .017,
for French LI, t = 2.55, p = .012, for English TD, t = 2.40, p = .018, and for English
LI, t = 3.51, p = .001. All tests are based on df = 130. In short, everyone is learning
to spell.
When we look more closely at the errors of the children, there are some interesting linguistic and group differences. Many spelling errors from the TD groups
Spelling Errors per Word
0.25
TD
LI
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
French: TD > LI
English: TD > LI
Figure13.7.
Spelling Errors per word as a function of language and group (TD, LI).
Spelling Errors per Word
0.3
TD
0.25
2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Younger
Older
French
Younger
Older
English
Figure13.8.
Spelling errors per word as a function of language, age and group (TD, LI).
LI
Table13.2 SPELLING ERRORS IN ENGLISH AND FRENCH FROM WRITTEN

NARRATIVES FROM STUDENTS WITH LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT
Errors in English
Errors in French
stcay:Stacy*
mavoler:ma vol
trae:trash
Ses t:c tait
chufball:trouble
commen ses:commencer
thone:threw
alecole: l cole
a stopon:accept
bas car:bagarr
srtr:shirt
le caleuabe:lescalope
hirrind:Harrington
cuisiniaire:cuisinire
* target word
are phonologically plausible, for example, sistr for sister in English and metrese for
matresse in French. However, errors from the LI group also included more phonologically implausible spellings as in uling for ugly. Across languages, errors in English
were largely word internal, for example, herd for heard. In contrast, in French, a sizeable number of errors were segmentation errors. Table 13.2 contains some examples of these types of errors. This difference may reflect the differing stress patterns
of English and French, where English stress is word delineated, whereas French is a
syllable-timed language. In sum, both the structure of the language and the childs
age and neurodevelopmental status affect his ability to spell.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, we see that LI has significant effects on childrens writing. Students

with LI make more morphosyntactic errors, use less complex syntax and make more
spelling errors in their writing than their typically developing peers. However, students, both typically developing and those with LI also very much reflect the language
community in which they are growing up: French morphology is more challenging
than that of English, regardless of group; French writers, both TD and LI, use less
complex syntax in their writing than their English-speaking counterparts. In sum,
learning to write poses a greater challenge for children with language impairment
than their typically developing peers, but both the structure of the target language,
as well as the communitys rhetorical preferences define and shape this challenge.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was in part supported by P50 NS22343:Neurological Bases of Language,

Learning and Cognition. We would like to thank Stephanie Chaminaud, Lucie
Broc, and Jun OHara for their help with transcription and data coding, Julian Parris
for graphics, and the staff at PCND for collecting the childrens stories. We are especially grateful to the children and their families who generously participated in
these studies.
REFERENCES
Bishop, D. V. M., & Clarkson, B. (2003). Written language as a window into residual language deficits:Astudy of children with persistent and residual speech and Language
Impairments. Cortex, 39, 215237.
Bishop, D.V. M., & Edmundson, A. (1987). Language-impaired 4-year-olds:Distinguishing
transient from persistent impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 52,
156173.
Dockrell, J.E., Lindsay, G., Connelly, V., & Mackie, C. (2007). Constraints in the Production
of Written Text in Children With Specific Language Impairment. Exceptional Children,
73, 147164.
Fey, M.E., Catts, H.W., Proctor-Williams, K., Tomblin, J.B., & Zhang, X. (2004). Oral and
written story composition skills of children with language impairment. Journal of Speech,
Gillam, R.B., & Johnston, J. (1992). Spoken and written language relationships in language/
learning-impaired and normally achieving school age children. Journal of Speech and
Leonard, L. (1998). Children with Specific Language Impairment. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Nir, B., & Berman, R. (2010). Complex syntax as a window on contrastive rhetoric Journal of
Pragmatics, 42, 744765.
Reilly, J., Losh, M., Bellugi, U., & Wulfeck, B. (2004). Frog, Where are you? Narratives in children with specific language impairment, early focal brain injury and Williams Syndrome.
In B. Wulfeck & J. Reilly (Eds.), Plasticity and development:Language in atypical children. Special issue, Brain & Language, 88, 229247.
Rice, M., Wexler, K., & Cleave, P. (1995). Specific language impairment as a period of extended
optional infinitive. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 850863.
Scott, C. M., & Windsor, J. (2000). General language performance measures in spoken and
written narrative and expository discourse of school-age children with language learning
disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 324339.
Share, D.L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching:Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151218.
Share, D.L. (2008). On the Anglo centricities of current reading research and practice:The
perils of overreliance on an outlier orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 584615.
CHAPTER14
AReview of Dyslexia and Expressive

Writing in English
EMM A SUMNER , VINCENT CONNELLY,
AND ANNA L. BARNETT
INTRODUCTION
Considerable advances have been made in understanding the cognitive processes

underlying reading and spelling problems in individuals with dyslexia. However
there has been much less work on issues related to their writing. Writing is a more
difficult skill because it involves production as well as processing of print, and
poor writing is a barrier to educational progress. In fact adults with dyslexia report
that writing, not reading, is their biggest problem (Burden, 2005; Mortimore &
Crozier, 2006). School exams are traditionally weighted toward assessment based
on producing extended written responses. It has been shown that students with
dyslexia achieve lower levels of success in exams than their peers (Richardson &
Wydell, 2003), whereas a large sample of poor readers identified in a childhood
sample continued to have poor spelling in their mid-adult life and 80% of the sample reported difficulty with writing a letter or filling in a form (Maughan, Messer,
Collishaw, Snowling, Yule, & Rutter, 2009). Although very high achieving university students with dyslexia studying medicine do appear to do as well as other
students on exams including writing short answers (McKendree & Snowling,
2011), even in this population there are some persisting difficulties with written
assessments, and adults with dyslexia do better with extra time in exams (Gibson
& Leinster, 2011).
DEFINITION OF DYSLEXIA IN ENGLISH
Dyslexia is a developmental disorder characterized by a specific word-level deficit

(Berninger, Nielsen, Abbott, Wijsman, & Raskind, 2008) and so there has been
much speculation about the overlap between dyslexia and children with oral language difficulties (Catts, 1996; Hulme & Snowling, 2009). However, a number of
thorough reviews (Bishop & Snowling, 2004; Catts, Adolf, Hogan, & Weismer,
2005; Pennington & Bishop, 2009)have made a clear claim that children with dyslexia are distinct from those with wider language problems such as specific language
impairment (SLI). Therefore, we shall concentrate here on those individuals who
have been identified with dyslexia only and whose dyslexia is not symptomatic of a
wider oral language difficulty.
In the United Kingdom, there have been many different definitions of dyslexia
(Brooks, 2007). The varied use of these definitions has led to many heated debates
not just in academia or education but more widely in Government and the media.
In response to this debate the UK government commissioned a report into the
identification and teaching of young people and children with dyslexia and literacy
difficulties. The Rose report (2009) provided a working definition of dyslexia in the
UK context that is reproduced in fullbelow:
Dyslexia is a learning difficulty that primarily affects the skills involved in accurate and
fluent word reading and spelling. Characteristic features of dyslexia are difficulties in
phonological awareness, verbal memory, and verbal processing speed. Dyslexia occurs
across the range of intellectual abilities. It is best thought of as a continuum, not a distinct category, and there are no clear cut-off points. Co-occurring difficulties may be
seen in aspects of language, motor co-ordination, mental calculation, concentration and
personal organisation, but these are not, by themselves, markers of dyslexia. A good
indication of the severity and persistence of dyslexic difficulties can be gained by examining how the individual responds or has responded to well-founded intervention.
(Rose, 2009, p.30)
This definition, while still stirring up some controversy was generally well received
by the academic and educational communities of interest in the United Kingdom.
However, in practice, many assessments made in schools still rely on distinct
cut-off points and tie the diagnosis to a discrepancy between reading and IQ (Bell,
McPhillips, & Doveston, 2011). There have been similar debates proposed in the
United States (Lyon, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 2003).
English speaking children with dyslexia will usually show difficulties in developing appropriate levels of accuracy, as well as fluency, when reading and spelling
words. On average, they are less accurate and slower at reading single words and
Dysle xia and E xpressive Writing in English [ 1 8 9 ]
they are invariably even poorer at spelling the same words (see Hulme & Snowling,
2009). Alarge and complex literature has shown that the majority of children with
dyslexia have difficulties with the phonological aspects of reading and spelling in
English (Hulme & Snowling, 2009; Kemp, 2009), but a growing literature points to
learning problems related to orthography as well as phonology in dyslexia (de Jong
& Messbauer, 2011; Snowling, 2011). The coding of phonological information in
memory and the transformation of phonological information into orthographic
codes (written words) is difficult for these children (Berninger etal., 2008; Gayan
& Olson, 2001). Many individuals with dyslexia also have problems with rapid
naming of letters ( Jones, Branigan, & Kelly, 2009) and working memory spans
appear to be smaller (Gathercole, Alloway, Willis, & Adams, 2006). However, most
researchers argue that the difficulties faced by children with dyslexia when dealing
with print have their impact specifically at the word or subword level ( Jackson &
Coltheart, 2001). These word-level deficits then, in turn, will affect processing at
other levels of written language.
THE WRITING PROFILE OF ENGLISH SPEAKING CHILDREN

WITH DYSLEXIA
The preceding review shows that there are a number of reasons to predict that children diagnosed with dyslexia in English would experience difficulties with writing.
When examining the composition of English-speaking individuals with dyslexia,
a number of differences from their peers are quickly noticed. First of all, they contain many more spelling errors than essays produced by other individuals of the
same age (Coleman, Gregg, McLain, & Bellair, 2009). It is also no surprise that the
compositions are shorter and are rated more poorly in both content and organization than their peers without dyslexia (Connelly, Campbell, MacLean, & Barnes,
2006; Gregg, Coleman, Davis and Chalk, 2007; Sterling, Farmer, Riddick, Morgan,
& Matthews, 1998). Furthermore, there are reports that they are very slow writers
(British Dyslexia Association, 2011; Rose, 2009); and motivation to write in these
children may also be a key issue when faced with a more difficult task than their
peers (Berninger & Hidi, 2007; Graham, Berninger, & Fan, 2007).
PROBLEMS WITH READING?
Reading is a critical skill for a writer ( Juel, 1988). Reading develops the complex
vocabulary, written grammatical knowledge and the appropriate background context to draw upon when composing and allows for rapid reviewing of the written
text. Reading back and forth through the text when writing has been shown to
be a common occurrence for typically achieving children and adults (Wengelin,
Leijten, & Van Waes, 2010)and re-reading has been associated with increased text
quality (Breetvelt, Van den Bergh, & Rijlaarsdam, 1996); but ironically slower writers appear to need to rely on reading more when writing than more fluent writers
(Beers, Quinlan, & Harbaugh, 2010). Furthermore, strong links between reading
comprehension and writing skills have been shown to grow through the primary
school years (Bourke & Adams, 2010; Juel, 1988). Thus, difficulty with reading
acquisition has consequences for both vocabulary growth and reading comprehension, since the struggle to recognize words will hinder sufficient practice in
developing comprehension skills (Cain, 2009; Carlisle & Rice, 2002). Therefore,
difficulties with reading will impact on the development of writing, in particular
spelling (see next section), thus leading to a delayed writing profile.
However, reading and writing are separable processes and are likely to interact
differently at different developmental stages (Abbott, Berninger, & Fayol, 2010;
Shanahan, 2006). This complicates matters, and, although reading and writing are
strongly correlated, reading is rarely reported to account for more than 50% of the
variance in writing at any one point in development (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000;
Shanahan, 2006). Therefore, it is reasonable to propose that the writing difficulties
of children with dyslexia may be limited to specific areas around spelling, vocabulary and the lower level writing processes. In fact, a study of high-achieving university students with dyslexia showed no difference in higher-order writing skills,
such as essay organization and coherence, compared to same-age peers when writing essays, but they still produced many more of the spelling errors that are typical
of those with dyslexia (Connelly, et al, 2006). There have been no carefully controlled intervention studies that have shown direct effects of reading interventions
on the development of writing skill in children with dyslexia that we have found to
date.
PROBLEMS WITH SPELLING?
A major difficulty that children with dyslexia have when beginning to learn to
write is learning to spell. Their poor phonological skills inhibit the development
of orthographic knowledge (Fayol, Zorman, & Lete, 2009). Children with dyslexia
find it difficult to make associations and store representations of word-specific
spelling conventions (Bruck, 1993; Olson, Wise, Johnson, & Ring, 1997). This
is particularly true in the English language where spellings are often irregular and
these conventions must be learned implicitly (Moats, 1995; Tsesmeli & Seymour,
2006). There are also strong frequency and consistency effects in learning to spell in
English that will be accentuated by poorer and thus less frequent reading (Nation,
Angell, & Castles, 2007). Children with dyslexia continue to have difficulty with
spelling even when their problems in reading words seem to have resolved (Kemp,
Parilla, & Kirby, 2009)and the essays of students with dyslexia contain many more
spelling errors compared to typically achieving age-matched peers (Connelly etal.,
2006; Sterling etal., 1998).
Misspelling can also have a direct influence on ratings of text quality (Berninger,
Vaughan, Abbott, Begay, Byrd etal., 2002). Spelling is a key predictor of writing
composition quality in both typical children and in children with dyslexia up to
the age of 11, and even beyond (Abbott etal., 2010; Berninger etal., 2008; Gregg
etal., 2007). Good spellers use fluent and efficient strategies to spell, whereas poor
spellers are slow and effortful in their spelling (Rittle-Johnson & Siegler, 1999).
Having to concentrate on spelling words takes time away from the purpose of writing and means less text is produced in the equivalent time to those without spelling problems (Connelly etal., 2006; Gregg etal., 2007)and there is an increasing
link between text length and text quality as children and adults make progress in
writing (Berninger & Swanson, 1994; Gregg, Coleman, Stennett, & Davis, 2002).
Over time, the constraints on writing from transcription exert less influence on
text quality in typically developing children, and they are able to devote more
resources to higher-order cognitive processes (Berninger & Swanson, 1994), but
children with dyslexia persist in their struggle with spelling (Puranik, Lombardino,
& Altmann, 2007; Sumner, Connelly, & Barnett, 2011). Spelling interventions have
achieved some success with children diagnosed with dyslexia (see Brooks, 2007),
and improvements in spelling can lead to improvements in written composition
(Berninger etal., 2002). Thus a large part of the difficulty that children with dyslexia have with writing could be partly dealt with through specific spelling interventions that will then have indirect effects through to improved compositional
development.
DOES POOR SPELLING INFLUENCE VOCABULARY CHOICE AND

GRAMMAR WHEN WRITING TEXT?
Vocabulary knowledge requires both phonological and semantic representations

and is heavily related to amounts of reading experience (Wise, Sevcik, Morris,
Lovett, & Wolf, 2007). Vocabulary levels are likely to be slightly delayed in children
with dyslexia due to reduced reading exposure. This may, in turn, have a detrimental effect on ratings of written work, since a high-graded text is typically associated
with a higher level of lexical diversity and sophisticated grammatical constructions
(Grobe, 1981; Olinghouse & Leaird, 2009).
There has been very little work on written vocabulary choice in children with
dyslexia. Quotes such as:Many participants in our research studies lament that
they cannot write compositions that express their ideas without limiting those
ideas to the words they think they can spell without embarrassment. (Berninger
etal, 2008. p.17) are common in the literature but actual studies examining this
issue are still quite rare. Research in Swedish appears to show a link between
spelling and vocabulary choice. It was found that adults with dyslexia showed
less lexical diversity and density in their written language but not in their spoken
language when compared to their peers (Wengelin, 2007). Sterling etal (1998)
analyzed the syllable length of vocabulary choices made in a free writing task
completed by English-speaking university students with and without dyslexia.
Students with dyslexia used many one-syllable words, rarely using words consisting of up to three syllables. Their age-matched peers, however, used proportionally more words of three syllables and longer. By way of contrast, Connelly
et al. (2006) found no difference in lexical diversity between a sample of UK
students with dyslexia and a chronological age-matched group when a timed,
more-complex expository writing task was rated. This study used a more difficult writing task than did Sterling etal. (1998). Therefore, the two studies suggests that when given an easier writing task, the individual with dyslexia may
choose easier-to-spell vocabulary but, when faced with a task in which complex
language is required, they do respond to the task vocabulary requirements. The
essays produced in the Connelly etal. (2006) study were complex and showed
appropriate use of low-frequency words where required. Thus, conflicting results
from studies in English means that it still remains open to debate whether poor
spelling contributes to constrained written vocabulary choices in individuals
with dyslexia.
A study of individuals with dyslexia between the ages of 11 and 21 used a writing through retelling task and found no difference in lexical diversity between
those with dyslexia and age-matched controls (Puranik et al., 2007). Rather, a
third group of children with more general language impairment had poorer lexical
diversity. However, these children with dyslexia produced as many grammatically
incorrect sentences as the language-impaired group. Although these findings are
intriguing, scoring of the syntactic errors of the sentences may have included counting errors in inflexional morphology. Inflexional morphology is a specific spelling
weakness for individuals with dyslexia ( Joanisse, Manis, Keating, & Seidenberg,
2000); therefore, the report of syntactic problems from the Puranik etal. (2007)
study may be compounded by their spelling difficulties.
PROBLEMS WITH HANDWRITING?
Another reported difficulty children with dyslexia face when writing may be related
to handwriting skill. Speed of handwriting is a strong predictor of written composition length and quality in typically developing children and even in some adults
(Berninger and Swanson, 1994; Connelly, Dockrell & Barnett, 2005; Graham,
Berninger, Abbott, Abbott, & Whitaker, 1997). Berninger etal. (2008) recruited
a sample of 122 children with dyslexia and tested them on a range of measures,
including handwriting automaticity (using an alphabet writing task). Although no
comparison group was used, the results did indicate that children were impaired
in handwriting speed (1.1 SD below the mean of Graham et al., 1997) but that
neither handwriting speed nor motor skills predicted written composition quality whereas spelling skill did. Other studies (using different tasks) also appear to
show that the handwriting of children with dyslexia is slower than peers (Sovik
& Arntzen, 1986; Sovik, Arntzen, & Thygesen, 1987)and continues to be slower
in adulthood (Hatcher, Snowling, & Griffiths, 2002). However, some studies have
found no evidence of handwriting speed differences for children with dyslexia
compared to their peers (Martlew, 1992) and while there may be differences in
handwriting speed in adulthood this may not differ from equivalent spelling-ability
matched controls (Connelly etal., 2006).
A pattern of mixed results is not uncommon in dyslexia research due to the
different tasks used to measure the same activity. The handwriting tasks undertaken have also included speeded writing and there is evidence that many, but
not all, children with dyslexia have problems with speeded tasks generally
(Katzir, Kim, Wolf, OBrien, Kennedy et al., 2006). Therefore, the mixed picture regarding handwriting speed could be explained by individual differences
in speed of accessing letter like forms in memory and integrating those with
hand movements to produce letters. Speed of accessing letters in a RAN task was
found to be predictive of writing quality in a sample of eleven year old children
with dyslexia (Berninger etal., 2008). Letter knowledge is highly predictive of
spelling in the early years of schooling in English (Muter, Hulme, Snowling,
& Stevenson, 2004)and children with dyslexia are slower at developing letter
knowledge (Bishop & Snowling, 2004).
With reported incidences of movement difficulties in dyslexia (Iversen,
Berg, Ellertsen, & Tonnessen, 2005) and co-morbidity with developmental
co-ordination disorder (DCD) (Chaix, Albaret, Brassard, Cheuret, Castelnau
etal., 2007); it is possible that slow handwriting may be a direct consequence
of poor motor control and coordination. It is rare for motor performance to be
separately assessed or DCD considered in studies of writing in children with
dyslexia. In our own work, when general motor difficulty has been ruled out,
handwriting has still been found to be slow. However, detailed analysis of the
writing task, using a digital writing tablet, demonstrated that the actual movement of the pen to form letters was as fast as age matched peers (Sumner,
Connelly, & Barnett, 2011, 2012).
Another explanation for slow writing in samples with dyslexia may be more
directly related to spelling. If children with dyslexia are struggling with spelling,
they may show more pauses in writing to try and process the spellings of words.
If so, then they slow down the process of transcription, leading to slower writing
than would be expected. It has been demonstrated in keystroke-logged essays in
Swedish that adults with dyslexia produce more pauses overall and in particular
more within-word pauses than age-matched controls (Wengelin, 2007; Wengelin
& Stromqvist, 2000). Using a digital writing tablet, it has also been recently demonstrated that a sample of children with dyslexia paused more frequently during
writing and were slower at composing a text than age-matched peers. As mentioned
earlier, however, the speed of the pen on the page was identical to peers, whereas the
amount of time pausing was the same as spelling-ability-matched children (Sumner
etal., 2011, 2013). Therefore, it seems that the pure writing speed of children with
dyslexia is not slow in itself but when required to spell while writing, more frequent
pausing slows the overall writing process down. Handwriting is constrained by
spelling. These are important findings, demonstrating that more frequent pausing
and not writing speed may be the real issue behind the slower pace of handwriting
in children with dyslexia. These findings need to be more widely investigated and
taken into account when modelling the development of writing.
LOOKING AHEAD
This review has shown that children with dyslexia have difficulty learning to write.
This difficulty appears to be primarily driven by the childrens impairment in word
and subword-level learning. This has an impact on their ability to interweave reading and writing processes leading to a severe impact on spelling, the slowing down
of composing and an impact on vocabulary diversity when composing. We suspect
there is less evidence for a clear handwriting problem and the slower pace of writing in children with dyslexia may be mediated by problems with pausing to spell.
However, given the specificity of the problems faced by children with dyslexia the
prognosis for remediation remains good. Interventions to support spelling have
been shown to impact on written expression. These interventions take a lot of time
and effort (Berninger etal., 2002)but could prove to support the composing skills
of children with dyslexia.
One reason for the current lack of depth in understanding has been the difficulty in measuring what aspects of writing children are actually struggling with.
Research on text production in children with writing difficulties has usually been
limited to a focus on products/outputs at single points in time (see special edition
Reading & Writing 2008 Vol1/2) not the process of production. The tools needed
to measure process have, until recently, either involved oral protocols or complex
cognitive tasks in school contexts, or are required to be conducted in experimental
laboratories. These methods, although sound in principle, are not ideal for examining process in primary-school-aged children. Thus, the majority of the research on
writing and dyslexia has taken place with adults not children.
Recent work has shown, through the use of real time data from portable digital
writing tablets, that typically developing childrens spelling and handwriting processes are intimately linked at the level of the within-word syllable (Kandel, 2009).
Kandel demonstrated that the spelling of a word is produced syllable by syllable
and that children prepare the movement to produce the first syllable before starting
to write. The child then begins to program in parallel the movement to produce the
second syllable on-line, while still engaged in writing the first few letters. Kandels
work has also shown that other levels of language are important to the spelling of
a word such as the initial morpheme and the selection of the appropriate grapheme. This ties in well with our recent work showing the importance of analyzing the
detailed writing processes of children with dyslexia (Connelly, Dockrell, & Barnett,
2011; Sumner etal., 2013).
This microstudy of writing has very important implications for the study
of children with dyslexia. For example, it may be that, to write a word most
efficiently, the child requires the ability to chunk that word into syllables. It is
known that children with dyslexia have difficulty with the segmentation of word
spellings. Thus, it will be important to demonstrate how and at what level children with dyslexia are similar to the typically developing children sampled in
Kandels work.
It is also very important to look at the impact of the spelling patterns of different written languages. French is (like Spanish) a more syllabically based written language than English and so one could make different predictions about
the level of chunking required to write English spellings efficiently. Thus, a
breakdown in spelling could take place at different linguistic levels (e.g., morpheme, syllable, grapheme, etc.) when children struggle with writing in different
languages.
Finally, the ability to process complex linguistic information in typically developing children requires an efficient working memory system. As shown in Berninger
and Swansons (1994) developmental model of the writing processes, working
memory regulates the recursive processes engaged while writing and responds to
specific task needs. Alimited working memory capacity has been found in children
with dyslexia (Gathercole etal., 2006). Although under-researched at present, these
limited memory resources, along with the high cognitive cost of spelling irregularities in the English language, may disrupt the high-order processes, such as idea generation and word selection, and the lower-level transcription skills. Further study
into the detailed links between language, spelling, and handwriting will allow us to
understand the processes that compete for resources in these children when writing.
REFERENCES
Abbott, R., Berninger, V., & Fayol, M. (2010). Longitudinal relationships of levels of language
in writing and between writing and reading in grades 1 to 7. Journal of Educational
Beers, S. F., Quinlan, T., & Harbaugh, G. (2010). Adolescent students reading during writing behaviors and relationships with text quality: An eyetracking study. Reading and
Bell, S., McPhillips, T., & Doveston, M. (2011). How do teachers in Ireland and England volume
number and page range conceptualise dyslexia? Journal of Research in Reading, 34, 171192.
Berninger, V. W., & Hidi, S. (2007). Mark twains writers workshop: A nature-nurture perspective for motivating students with learning disabilities to compose. In S. Hidi, & P.
Boscolo (Eds.), Writing and motivation (pp. 163182). Bingley, England:Emerald.
Berninger, V.W., & Swanson, H.L. (1994). Modifying Hayes and Flowers model of skilled writing. In E. Butterfield (Ed.), Childrens Writing; Toward a Process Theory of Development of
Skilled Writing (pp. 5781). Greenwich, CT:JAI Press.
School Psychology, 46, 121.
Berninger, V., & Swanson, H.L. (1994). Modifying Hayes & Flowers model of skilled writing to explain beginning and developing writing. In E. Butterfield (Ed.), Childrens writing: Toward a process theory of development of skilled writing (pp. 5781). Greenwich,
CT:JAI Press.
Berninger, V., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R., Begay, K., Byrd, K., Curtin, G., Minnich, J., & Graham,
simple view of writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 291304.
Bishop, D.V. M., & Snowling, M.J. (2004). Developmental Dyslexia and Specific Language
Impairment:Same or Different? Psychological Bulletin, 130, 858886.
Bourke, L., & Adams, A-M. (2010). Cognitive constraints and the Eary Years; Learning Goals
in writing. Journal of Research in Reading, 33, 94110.
Breetvelt, I., Van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1996). Rereading and generating and
their relation to text quality: An application of multilevel analysis on writing process
data. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. Van, F.den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Theories, models,
and methodology in writing research:Studies in writing (Vol. 1, pp. 1020). Amsterdam,
British Dyslexia Association (2011). Information for Parents: Help with Handwriting.
Retrieved July 28, 2011, from http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/about-dyslexia/parents/help-with-handwriting.html.
Brooks, G. (2007). What works for pupils with literacy difficulties? London, England:DCSF.
Bruck, M. (1993). Component spelling skills of college students with childhood diagnoses of
dyslexia. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 16, 171184.
Burden, R. (2005). Dyslexia and self-concept:Seeking a dyslexic identity. London, England:Whurr.
Cain, K. (2009). Childens reading comprehension difficulties:a consideration of the precursors and consequences. In C. Wood & V. Connelly (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on
reading and spelling (pp. 7691). Oxford, England:Routledge.
Carlisle, J.F., & Rice, M.S. (2002). Improving reading comprehension, research-based principles
and practices. Timonium, MD:York Press.
Catts, H. W. (1996). Defining dyslexia as a developmental language disorder: An expanded
view. Topics in Language Disorders, 16, 1429.
Catts, H.W., Adolf, S.M., Hogan, T.P., & Weismer, S.E. (2005). Are specific language impairment and dyslexia distinct disorders? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,
48, 13781396.
Chaix, Y., Albaret, J.-M., Brassard, C., Cheuret, E., Castelnau, P., Benesteau, J.,...Demonet, J.F.
(2007). Motor impairments in dyslexia:The influence of attention disorders. European
Journal of Paediatric Neurology, 11, 368374.
Coleman, C., Gregg, N., McLain, L., & Bellair, L.W. (2009). A comparison of spelling performance across young adults with and without dyslexia. Assessment for effective Intervention,
34, 94105.
Connelly, V., Campbell, S., MacLean, M., & Barnes, J. (2006). Contribution of lower order skills
to the written composition of college students with and without dyslexia. Developmental
Neuropsychology, 29, 175196.
Connelly, V., Dockrell, J., & Barnett, J. (2005). The slow handwriting of undergraduate students constrains overall performance in exam essays. Educational Psychology, 25,
99107.
Connelly, V., Dockrell, J. E., & Barnett, A. (2011). Children challenged by writing due to
language and motor difficulties. In V. Berninger (Ed.), Cognitive psychology of writing
handbook:Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive
psychology (pp. 217245). NewYork, NY:Psychology Press.
de Jong, P., & Messbauer, V. (2011). Orthographic context and the acquisition of orthographic
knowledge in normal and dyslexic readers. Dyslexia, 17, 107122.
Fayol, M., Zorman, M., & Lt, B. (2009). Associations and dissociations in reading and
spelling French. Unexpectedly poor and good spellers. British Journal of Educational
Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development.
Educational Psychologist, 35, 3950.
Gathercole, S.E., Alloway, T.P., Willis, C.S., & Adams, A.M. (2006). Working memory
in children with reading disabilities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93,
265281.
Gayan, J., & Olson, R.K. (2001). Genetic and environmental influences on orthographic and
phonological skills in children with reading disabilities. Developmental Neuropsychology,
20(2), 483507.
Gibson, S., & Leinster, S.J. (2011). How do students with dyslexia perform in extended matching questions, Short answer questions and observed structured examinations? Advances
in Health Science Education Theory and Practice, 16, 395404.
Graham, S., Berninger, V. W., & Fan, W. (2007). The structural relationship between writing attitude and writing achievement in first and third grade students. Contemporary
Graham, S., Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., & Whitaker, D. (1997). Role of
mechanics in composing of elementary school students. A new methodological
approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 170182.
Gregg, N.G., Coleman, C., Davis, M., & Chalk, J.C. (2007). Timed essay writing:Implications
for high-stakes test. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 306318.
Gregg, N., Coleman, C., Stennett, B., & Davis, M. (2002). Discourse complexity of college
writers with and without disabilities:Amultidimensional analysis. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 35, 2338.
Grobe, C. (1981). Syntactic maturity, mechanics, and vocabulary as predictors of quality ratings. Research in the Teaching of English, 15, 7585.
Hatcher, J., Snowling, M.J., & Griffiths, Y.M. (2002). Cognitive assessment of dyslexic students in higher education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 119133.
Hulme, C.J., & Snowling, M.J. (2009). Developmental disorders of language learning and cognition. Oxford, England:Blackwell/Wiley.
Iversen, S., Berg, K., Ellertsen, B., & Tonnessen, F-E. (2005). Motor coordination difficulties
in a municipality group and in a clinical sample of poor readers. Dyslexia, 11, 217231.
Jackson, N. E., & Coltheart, M. (2001). Routes to reading success and failure. New York,
NY:Psychology Press.
Joanisse, M.F., Manis, F.R., Keating, P., & Seidenberg, M.S. (2000). Language deficits in dyslexic children:Speech perception, phonology and morphology. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 77, 3060.
Jones, M. W., Branigan, H. P., & Kelly, M. L. (2009). Dyslexic and nondyslexic reading fluency:Rapid automatized naming and the importance of continuous lists. Psychonomic
Bulletin & Review, 16(3), 567572.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first
through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437447.
Kandel, S. (2009). For a psycholinguistic approach of handwriting production. In A. Vinter &
J. L.Velay (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the International Graphonomics
Society, 8386. Universite de Bourgogne Press.
Katzir, T., Kim, Y., Wolf, M., OBrien, B., Kennedy, B., Lovett, M., & Morris, R. (2006). Reading
fluency:The whole is more than the parts. Annals of Dyslexia, 56, 5182.
Kemp, N. (2009). The acquisition of spelling patterns:early, late or never? In C. Wood & V.
Connelly (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on reading and spelling (pp. 7691). Oxford,
England:Routledge.
Kemp, N., Parrila, R., & Kirby, J. (2009). Phonological and orthographic spelling in
high-functioning adult dyslexics. Dyslexia, 15, 105128.
Lyon, G.R., Shaywitz, S.E., & Shaywitz, B.A. (2003). Defining dyslexia, comorbidity, teachers knowledge of language and reading. Adefinition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53,
114.
Martlew, M. (1992). Handwriting and spellingDyslexic childrens abilities compared with
children of the same chronological age and younger children of the same spelling level.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 375390.
Maughan, B., Messer, J., Collishaw, S., Snowling, M.J., Yule, W., & Rutter, M. (2009). Persistence
of literacy problems:spelling in adolescence and at mid-life. Journal of Child Psychology
& Psychiatry, 50, 893901.
McKendree, J., & Snowling, M.J. (2011). Examination results of medical students with dyslexia. Medical Education, 45, 176182.
Moats, L.C. (1995). Spelling:Development, disabilities, and instruction. Timonium, MD:York
Press.
Mortimore, T., & Crozier, W.R. (2006). Dyslexia and difficulties with study skills in higher
education. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 235251.
Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M.J., & Stevenson, J. (2004). Phonemes, rimes and language
skills as foundations of early reading development:Evidence from a longitudinal study.
Developmental Psychology, 40, 665681.
Nation, K., Angell, P., & Castles, A. (2007). Orthographic learning via self-teaching in children learning to read English: effects of exposure, durability and context. Journal of
Olinghouse, N.G., & Leaird, J.L. (2009). The relationship between measures of vocabulary
and narrative writing quality in second- and fourth-grade students. Reading and Writing,
22, 545565.
Olson, R. K., Wise, B., Johnson, M. C., & Ring, J. (1997). The etiology and remediation of phonologically based word recognition and spelling difficulties: Are phonological deficits the hole story? In B. Blachman (Eds.), Foundations of reading
acquistion and dyslexia:Implications for early intervention (pp. 305326). Hillsdale,
NJ:Erlbaum.
Pennington, B.F., & Bishop, D.V. M. (2009). Relations among speech, language and reading
disorders. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 283306.
Puranik, C.S., Lombardino, L.J., & Altmann, L.J. P. (2007). Writing through retellings:an
explanatory study of language-impaired and dyslexic populations. Reading and Writing,
20, 251272.
Richardson, J. T. E., & Wydell, T. N. (2003). The representation and attainment of students
with dyslexia in UK higher education. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,
16, 475503.
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Siegler, R.S. (1999). Learning to spell:Variability, choice, and change in
childrens strategy use. Child Development, 70, 332348.
Rose, J. (2009). Independent review of the primary curriculum. Nottingham, England:DCSF.
Shanahan, T. (2006). Relations among oral language, reading and writing development. In C.
MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 171183).
NewYork:Guilford Press.
Snowling, M.J. (2011). What places a child at risk of dyslexia? Evidence from family risk studies.
Keynote address at the British Dyslexia Association:Beyond BoundariesHarrogate
International Conference Centre, 2nd June 2011.
Sovik, N., & Arntzen, O. (1986). A comparative study of the writing/spelling performances of
normal, dyslexic, and dysgraphic children. European Journal of Special Needs Education,
1(2), 85101.
Sovik, N., Arntzen, O., & Thygesen, R. (1987). Writing characteristics of normal, dyslexic and
dysgraphic children. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 13(4), 171187.
Sterling, C., Farmer, M., Riddick, B., Morgan, S., & Matthews, C. (1998). Adult dyslexic writing. Dyslexia, 4, 115.
Sumner, E., Connelly, V., & Barnett, A. (2011). Writing performance of children with dyslexia.
Paper presented at the British Dyslexia Association:Beyond BoundariesHarrogate
International Conference Centre, 2nd June 2011.
Sumner, E., Connelly, V., & Barnett, A. L. (2013). Children with dyslexia are slow writers
because they pause more often and not because they are slow at handwriting. Reading
and Writing:An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26, 9911008.
Tsesmeli, S.N., & Seymour, P.H. K. (2006). Derivational morphology and spelling in dyslexia.
Reading and Writing, 19, 587625.
Wengelin, A. (2007). The word-level focus in text production by adults with reading and writing difficulties. In Gert Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) and M. Torrance, L. van Waes & D.
Galbraith (Volume Eds.), Writing and cognition: Research and applications (Studies in
Writing, Volume 20, pp. 6782). Amsterdam, Netherlands:Elsevier.
Wengelin, A., Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2010). Studying reading during writing:New
perspectives in research. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23,
735742.
Wengelin, A., & Stromqvist, S. (2000). Discourse level writing in dyslexicsmethods,
results, and implications for diagnosis. Logopedics, Phoniatrics, Vocology, 25(1),
2228.
Wise, J.C., Sevcik, R.A., Morris, R.D., Lovett, M.W., & Wolf, M. (2007). The Relationship
among receptive and expressive vocabulary, listening comprehension, pre-reading skills,
word identification skills, and reading comprehension by children with reading disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 10931109.
CHAPTER15
Written Spelling in French Children

withDyslexia
SVERINE CA SALIS
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Developmental dyslexia is defined as a specific reading impairment that is mostly

associated to phonological deficits. Although the definition includes both reading
and spelling impairments, most research has focused on reading difficulties, and
less is known about spelling. Spelling difficulties are generally reported to remain
even when reading difficulties are overcome in dyslexia; however, the aspects of
spelling that are specifically impaired remain to be specified. This question is particularly central in French, where spelling is particularly inconsistent, whereas reading is mostly regular. The aim of the present study is to investigate spelling in French
children with dyslexia.
Dyslexia
Developmental dyslexia is a developmental disorder that affects learning to read.

The current definition recommended by the International Dyslexia Association is
a specific learning disability that is neurobiological in origin. It is characterized by
difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and
decoding abilities. These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language (Lyon, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 2003, p.2).
The dyslexia diagnosis excludes children with hearing loss or language impairment by definition. In France, the criterion for dyslexia is a reading delay of
24months on a standard test that measures reading-aloud skills.
The Dual Route Framework
The dual-route model accounts for procedures used in single-word reading

(Coltheart, Rastle, Perry, Langdon, & Ziegler, 2001). The lexical procedure (also
termed orthographic) relies on the activation of word-specific orthographic and
phonological memory representations. The non-lexical procedure (also termed
phonological) uses a sublexical procedure based on grapheme-phoneme correspondences (GPC hereinafter). The lexical procedure can process all familiar
words, regardless of whether they are regular or irregular in terms of their GPC, but
does not permit the processing of unfamiliar words or pseudowords because these
items do not have lexical representations. The nonlexical procedure can succeed in
reading pseudowords and regular words but not irregular words. Weight of each
procedure may depend on the transparency of orthography in alphabetical systems.
The Impact of Orthographic Transparency on Dyslexia
Studies conducted in English have evidenced strong deficit in pseudoword reading

in dyslexia, in terms of both accuracy and speed. The deficit is apparent when performance is compared not only to chronological age-matched children, but also to
reading age-matched children (see Van Ijzendoorn & Bus, 1994 for a review). This
strongly indicates that the sublexical procedure is severely impaired. English has
one of the deepest orthographies among alphabetic scripts, requiring the learning
of large numbers of GPC. In more transparent orthographies, the pseudoword deficit is revealed by extreme slowness rather than inaccuracy (in German:Wimmer,
1996; in Italian: DeLuca et al., 2002, in French: Sprenger-Charolles Col,
Kipffer-Piquard, Pinton, & Billard, 2009).
Regularity and Inconsistency of French Orthography
French is considered as relatively transparent in reading and highly inconsistent

in spelling. Ziegler, Jacobs, and Stone (1996) calculated the bidirectional inconsistency of spelling and sound in French using the French BRULEX database
(Content, Mousty, & Radeau, 1990). A striking result of the analysis conducted
on monosyllabic words was that 12.4% are inconsistent from the spelling-to-sound
correspondence point of view, whereas 79.1% are inconsistent from the sound-tospelling correspondence point of view. The Manulex-infra database (Peereman,
Lt, & Sprenger-Charolles, 2007)examines grapheme-to-phoneme (GP) consistency and phoneme-to-grapheme (PG) consistency in words addressed to children
(grades 1 to 5). The results confirm the strong discrepancy between inconsistencies
in reading and in spelling. GP consistency was estimated, according to its position
in the word, at 96% in the initial position, 80% in the middle position, and 92%
in the final position. So in all, the level of consistency observed in reading is high.
By contrast, PG consistency was estimated at 91% in initial, 76% in middle and
45% in final position. Thus, a drastic drop in consistency is observed in spelling.
This discrepancy is shared by most orthographies even though it is very strong in
French:many regular words contain inconsistent spelling. For the sake of clarity, we
will refer to regularity when considering GPC (reading) and consistency when
considering PGC (spelling). Given this discrepancy, it turns out that some readers, who read quite well, experience instead difficulties with spelling (Frith, 1980).
In addition, as pointed by Fayol, Zorman, and Lt (2009), spelling requires precise knowledge about the letters and their positions in words, whereas reading via
the lexical route can be performed with only a partial orthographic information,
when this knowledge (even incomplete) permits distinguishing one word from
the others. Indeed, spelling depends on relying on several regularities:phonological, orthographic and morphological, in addition to orthographic lexical retrieval.
These linguistic processing have been found to be involved in spelling difficulties in
dyslexia in English (Berninger, Nielsen, Abbott, Wijsman, & Raskind, 2008).
Phonological Strategy in Spelling
Spelling necessitates a deep phonological analysis of the word to be spelled:each

phoneme has to be identified to be converted into a grapheme. Indeed, spelling
errors are, mostly, phonologically plausible in normal developing French spellers
(Sprenger-Charolles, Siegel, Bchennec, & Serniclaes, 2003).
At first glance, given their poor phonological skills, children with dyslexia are
expected to perform poorly on phonological procedure in spelling. In English,
Bruck and Treiman (1990) used a spelling-level match design to investigate the
spelling of word-initial consonant clusters. Children with dyslexia failed to spell
the second consonant of clusters, as did the normal readers/spellers, but were even
more impaired when spelling pseudowords. However, other studies have failed to
evidence any difference between groups, with children with dyslexia and controls
making similar proportions of phonologically motivated spelling errors (Bourassa
& Treiman, 2003).
Graphotactic Knowledge
Phonological procedure is not sufficient to spell words given the inconsistency

of French orthography. Pacton, Fayol, and Perruchet (2005) have emphasised the role of graphotactic knowledge (distributional properties of letters):
Children do also learn regularity about orthography, like for example, the
fact that double consonants can be observed in median position but in neither beginning nor end of words, or that some letters can be doubled (e.g., n
W r i t t e n Sp e ll i n g i n F r e n c h C h i l d r e n w i t h D y s l e x i a [ 2 0 3 ]
in French) whereas other cannot be (e.g., h French). Examining pseudoword

spellings in second and fourth graders, Pacton, Fayol, and Perruchet (2002)
observed that the sound /o/ was spelled eau mostly at the end of the words,
au and o at beginning and median position, in accordance with distributions
observed in French orthography.
Concerning dyslexia, Bourassa and Treiman (2003) observed that Englishspeaking children with dyslexia and spelling-level matched controls made similar
proportions of graphotactically legal spellings (see also Cassar, Treiman, Moats,
Pollo, & Kessler 2005). Note, however, that children with dyslexia have been
recently shown to be more sensitive to consistency than reading age controls
(Davies & Weekes, 2005).
Morphological Knowledge
Morphological structure also contributes to spelling. As indicated by Deacon,

Conrad, and Pacton (2008), both suffix (e.g., the French diminutive -ette, the ed
past tense) and root are used by children when spelling words. Indeed, when a child
has to spell a derived and infrequent word, knowing the spelling of the root can help
him or her given that the root remains consistent (e.g., ea in healthy can be driven by
the root heal). Concerning dyslexia, Bourassa and Treiman (2003) have shown that
children with dyslexia use the principle of morphological consistency to the same
extent as spelling-level controls.
Specific Orthographic Knowledge
Besides these sublexical strategies, children may retrieve the lexical orthographic
form, which is referred to specific orthographic knowledge, in order to spell words.
Indications of lexical orthographic knowledge may be obtained through three
kinds of effects: frequency, regularity, and analogy. Alegria and Mousty (1996)
found that frequency effects occurred late in the developmental course. In the
same line, Sprenger-Charolles etal. (2003) observed regularity effects at the onset
of literacy. Both results reflect a late use of orthographic lexical knowledge. By
contrast, Lt, Peereman, and Fayol (2008) observed a jump of frequency effects
between first and second grade in French, and Martinet, Valdois, and Fayol (2004)
found that young children can use lexical analogy when spelling new words. Few
data are available on dyslexia. In German, children with strong phonological deficits experience word spelling difficulties (Wimmer, Mayringer, & Landerl, 2000).
In Italian, a recent study with adults with dyslexia suggests that most of their difficulties lie in word learning rather than phonological skills (Romani, Di Betta, &
Tsouknida, 2008).
Predictors of Spelling
In line with the aforementioned studies, main predictors of spelling abilities are
phonological awareness (Treiman, 1993), rapid naming (Landerl and Wimmer,
2000), and morphological awareness, that is the ability to manipulate morphemes
(Casalis, Deacon, & Pacton, 2011). We are not aware of studies examining graphotactic knowledge as predictor of spelling, but a recent study indicates that this kind
of knowledge could be more a consequence than a predictor of reading (Deacon,
Benere, & Castles, 2012).
THE PRESENT STUDY
In all, several aspects of spelling have to be examined in dyslexia. Whereas English

studies have indicated that performance was similar to spelling-level matched children, studies conducted in transparent languages have indicated a more marked
deficit in lexical orthographic knowledge. As mentioned before, the case of French
is interesting given its discrepancy between consistency in reading and spelling.
Given this inconsistency, it seems important to distinguish irregularity and inconsistency and neutralize one aspect when the other is under study. The aim of the
present study was to assess spelling in French children with dyslexia, as compared
to reading-level matched children (to equate on word exposition). Four specific
research questions motivated the study:
Question 1: Are French children with dyslexia more impaired than their reading-age controls in spelling? More precisely, which spelling procedure is more impaired
if any?
Question 2: Is there a specific impairment in phonological pseudoword spelling strategies
as compared to word spelling?
Question 3: What is the impact of GPC regularity on spelling?
Question 4: What are the concurrent predictors of spelling in dyslexia?
METHOD
Participants
Fifty children with dyslexia took part in the study. All were native French speakers and attended school regularly. Their diagnoses of developmental dyslexia were
based on DSM-IV criteria:a reading age of at least 24months lower than expected
according to chronological age, and IQ as measured by the WISC greater than 85
to exclude global intellectual difficulties. The children had normal or corrected-tonormal visual acuity. Children presenting with attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD), specific language impairment (SLI), an anxiety disorder, or a
neurological or psychiatric disease were excluded. Chronological age ranged from

8years 9months to 13years 10months (Mage=10.11, SD=16months). Their
grade level ranged from third grade to eighth grade. Reading age, as assessed by the
Alouette test (Lefavrais, 2005), was 7years 6months (SD=8months, range=6;6
9;10). Forty-five children composed the reading-age-matched control group (RA
henceforth). Mean age was 7years 5months (SD=4months) and reading age as
assessed by the Alouette test was 7years 6months (SD=6months). They were
enrolled in school in the second and third grades.
Materials
Spelling Test
A list of 20 words was created for the purposes of the study:10 were regular (e.g.,
tomate- tomato) and 10 were irregular from the GPC point of view (e.g., hiver- winter).
They were strictly matched in terms of number of letters and for inconsistency from
the PGC point of view. Standard tests were not used because they usually control for
regularity in reading but not for consistency in spelling. Alist of 20 pseudowords was
elaborated for the purpose of the experiment. Ten items were phonologically short
and simple (CVCV structure, e.g., doumin) and 10 were phonologically complex or
long (CCVCCV structure or CVCVCV structure, e.g., trafor, mispro). All included
sounds that can be spelled several ways, but all spellings were acceptable.
Reading
The standardized Alouette test was used to establish a reading-age level. This test
involves reading a text of 265 words aloud as quickly and accurately as possible. The
final score yields a reading age, taking into account both speed (how many words
are read during 3 minutes) and accuracy. The Belec battery (Mousty, Leybaert,
Alegria, Content, & Morais, 1994) was used to explore reading procedures and
identify subtypes of dyslexia. In this test, children have to read 40 regular words:
20 irregular words and 40 pseudowords. As a whole, the dyslexic group performed
worse on pseudoword reading and equally well on regular and irregular words, as
compared to the reading-age control group. In addition, this procedure identified
2 children with surface dyslexia and 12 children with phonological dyslexia, too
small a number of dissociated profiles to allow specific comparisons.
Phoneme Deletion
The children were asked to pronounce what remained after removing the first phoneme of a pseudoword. The items were monosyllabic and bisyllabic pseudowords
beginning with a CV, CVC, and CCV syllable (30 items). Items were pronounced
by the experimenter. Reliability for this test is .78.
Visual Abilities
The Benton Retention Test was used as a measure of the retention of complex nonlinguistic figures. Children were required to look at a complex figure and then recognize it among 4 alternatives. There were 12 figures.
Judgment of String Similarity. On this test, two strings of letters (set 1) or nonletter symbols (such as Greek letters, , #, etc., set 2) were presented. Children were
requested to answer whether the two strings were identical or different. The strings
differed only in the order of elements. Score was the number of correct responses
in the course of 2 minutes.
Morphological Awareness
A sentence completion task (see Casalis, Col, & Sopo, 2004) was administered.
On this task, children have to complete a sentence with a derived form (e.g.: a man
who runs is a. . ., runner). Reliability is .76.
RESULTS
Question 1: Are French children with dyslexia more impaired than their RA controls in
spelling? More precisely, which spelling procedure is more impaired if any? To answer
these questions, the performance of children with dyslexia was compared to reading level-matched children on word (orthographically correct) and pseudoword
spelling. In general, higher performance is to be expected in pseudoword over word
spelling, given the inconsistency of French orthography. In dyslexia, the situation is
difficult to anticipate: On one hand, it is easier to spell items such as pseudowords
given that many graphemes are possible for one phoneme, contrary to words; on
the other hand, pseudowords are more difficult to process in dyslexia because of
phonological impairment. To answer this question, we computed an ANOVA with
group (children with dyslexia versus RA controls) as between-subjects factor and
item lexicality (words versus pseudowords) as a repeated measure. The dependent
variable was the number of items correctly spelled: correct spellings (in terms of
orthographic accuracy only for words1). Reading age-matched children performed
better than children with dyslexia (respectively 70.5% and 55%, F(1,93) = 9.987,
p = .002, Table 15.1). Scores were higher for pseudowords than for words (respectively, 69.1% and 55.73%, F(1,93) = 20.565, p < .001). However, there was no interaction between group and item lexicality (F < 1). In all, spelling was more impaired
Table15.1 PERCENTAGE OF CORRECT RESPONSES IN SPELLING BY SCORING

TYPE FOR EACH CATEGORY OF ITEMS (STANDARD DEVIATION IN BRACKETS)
Dyslexics
Orth Ac
Reading-age Controls
Phon Ac
Ortho Ac
Phon Ac
Regular words
52.2
77
68.9
93.6
Irregular words
(30.6)
44.4
(26.7)
71.2
(30.1)
59.1
(7.7)
92
(31)
(28.4)
(31.3)
(8.7)
Short pseudowords
65
58.8
Long pseudowords
(30.3)
58.8
(16.3)
72.9
(33.7)
(21.1)
Note:Orth Ac=orthographically accurate; Phon Ac=phonologically accurate.
in children with dyslexia than in RA controls, and similarly on both procedures:

nonlexical and lexical.
Question 2: Is there a specific impairment in phonological pseudoword spelling
strategies as compared to word spelling when only phonological accuracy (and not
conventional orthographic patterns) is taken into account? The second question
thus concerns the nonlexical procedure. We computed an ANOVA with group
as a between-subjects factor and items lexicality (words versus pseudowords) as
repeated measure. The dependent measure was phonologically acceptable spellings.
There were more phonologically acceptable responses for words than for pseudowords, respectively, 82.9% and 69.1%, F(1,93)=54.459, p < .001. Children
with dyslexia were outperformed by RA controls:respectively 68% and 84.9%,
F(1,93)=15.132, p=.001. There was no interaction (F < 1)between group and
item lexicality. We further explored the nonlexical procedure by examining effect
of complexity on pseudoword spelling. Simple pseudowords were spelled more
accurately than complex pseudowords. Again, children with dyslexia were outperformed by RA controls:F(1,93)=8.271, p=.005, without interaction (F < 1).
There was a length effect, F(1,93) = 27.513, p < .001, but, again, there was no
interaction (F < 1).
Question 3: What is the impact of GPC regularity on spelling? The third question explores the lexical procedure. As mentioned earlier, French orthography is
highly inconsistent. We thus considered only inconsistent patterns for both regular and irregular words. If normal readers rely on phonological recoding to memorize orthographic patterns, as suggested by the self-teaching hypothesis proposed
by Share (1999), we thus expect these children to spell irregular words less well
than regular words, even if both are matched on inconsistency. If children with
dyslexia use alternative strategies (other than phonological recoding) to memorize orthographic patterns, they could be less affected by regularity in reading than
normal readers. To answer this question, we computed an ANOVA with group as

a between-subjects factor and word type (regular versus irregular) as a repeated
measure. Regular words were spelled more accurately than irregular words,
respectively, 60.1% and 51.4%, F(1,93) = 26.220, p < .001. Again, RA controls outperformed children with dyslexia (64% versus 48.3%), F(1,93) = 26.22, p < .001,
and there was no interaction between group and regularity. Regularitys impact
on reading was further explored by comparing regular and irregular word spelling
with phonologically acceptable spelling as a measure of accuracy. The aim of this
analysis was to examine how irregularity in reading affects the phoneme-to-grapheme correspondence in spelling. An ANOVA was conducted with the same design
and with phonologically acceptable spelling as the dependent measure. Interestingly,
regular words were spelled more accurately from a phonological point of view
than irregular words (respectively, 84.8% versus 81%), F(1,93) = 11.449, p = .001.
There was a group effect, with children with dyslexia outperformed by reading
age-matched children, F(1,93) = 20.403, p < .001. Finally, there was a group by
word regularity interaction, F(1,93) = 3.812, p = .01, indicating that the difference
between irregular and regular words was larger for children with dyslexia.
Question 4:What are the concurrent predictors of spelling in dyslexia? We conducted
two hierarchical multiple regression analyses to examine what factor beyond reading level explained variance in spelling. The aim of the first regression analysis was
to identify a predictor variable for word spelling (orthographic accuracy), the second
regression for pseudoword spelling (phonological accuracy).
In both analyses, chronological age was entered first and reading age second.
Potential predictors then included phoneme deletion, rapid naming, morphological awareness, visual retention test.
In the word-spelling regression analysis, chronological age accounted for 14.5% of
variance and reading age for an additional 40.8%. The two combined thus accounted
for a total of 55.3%. The next step identified rapid naming as an independent predictor, accounting for an additional 3.3% of the variance. In all, these factors thus
accounted for 58.6% of variance in word spelling performance (Table 15.2).
In the pseudoword-spelling regression analysis, chronological age accounted for
a nonsignificant 5% and reading age for an additional 33.1%, accounting for 38.1%
of variance. The next step identified phonological awareness as an independent
predictor, accounting for an additional 19.8% of variance. The final step identified
morphological awareness as an independent predictor, accounting for an additional
8.4% of variance. In all, these four factors thus accounted for 66.3% of variance in
word-spelling performance (Table 15.2).
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
These results clearly suggest that French children with dyslexia experience more
difficulty in spelling than the reading-level matched controls, for both lexical and
Table15.2 HIERARCHICAL MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR WORD

SPELLING AND PSEUDOWORD SPELLING
Word spelling (orthographic accuracy)
Step
Predictor variable
Chronological age
.07
14.5 *
2
3
Reading age
Rapid Naming
.721
.227
40.8 ***
3.3 *
Pseudoword spelling (phonological accuracy)

1
2
Chronological age
Reading age
3
4
Phoneme deletion
Morphological awareness
.125
.420
5 ns
33.1 ***
.329
.359
19.8 ***
8.4 **
Note:Values reported are unstandardized b coefficients and changes in R as they are entered into the model.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
nonlexical procedures. However, spelling is more impaired than reading in both

procedures, and it is not possible to locate a strongest deficit in one of the procedures. The results of this study suggest that children with dyslexia apparently do
not develop alternative strategies to memorize orthographic patterns, and they are
sensitive to the regularity of GPC. In addition, they seem to have more difficulty
producing phonologically acceptable spellings with irregular words than with regular ones. Analyses of errors clearly indicated that this was due to presence of correct
letters at the wrong location, such as inversion of letters (for example, album [book]
spelled ablum or fils [son] spelled fisl). This suggests that children with dyslexia are
sensitive to letter identities and can memorize them, but that they have not developed accurate knowledge of orthographic patterns.
Regression analyses revealed that spelling is strongly dependent on reading
level. Predictors of word and pseudoword spelling differ slightly. Although reading
level accounts for the largest proportion of variance, rapid naming accounts for a
significant amount of the variance in word spelling while phonological awareness
(phoneme deletion) does so for pseudoword spelling. Morphological awareness
partially accounts for variation in pseudoword spelling and not in word spelling. In
all, these results show that phonological skills apparently explain spelling beyond
readingin other words, they can contribute more to spelling than to reading. It
is striking that no visual abilitiesneither complex figure recognition (Benton,
1982) nor the string similarity judgmentaccounted for any part of spelling performance. The judgment of string similarity is a visual discrimination test that does
not require storage and processing of written words in working memory (without
being able to view them); this requirement could be more involved in spelling.
Instead, only measures of language abilities contributed significantly to spelling
performance in both word and pseudoword spelling. Finding that morphological
awareness contributes to pseudoword spelling may be explained by the fact that

children tried to use all their linguistic knowledge and all possible clues on word
structure. A similar result has been found in Italian (Arf, De Bernardi, Pasini, &
Poeta, 2012). The strong inconsistency of French orthography leads to additional
challenges in spelling. These challenges are different in nature from the difficulties
readers face when reading irregular words. As revealed by error analysis, children
with dyslexia are poorer at spelling irregular words even when only phonological
accuracy is taken into account. This indicates that children with dyslexia may pay
attention to letter identity, to a certain extent, but without being able to report correct order or maintain phonological plausibility. This attention to specific orthographic pattern may not be operant when the phonological deficit is too strong.
This is not to say that there is no need for stimulation that develops knowledge
about orthographic patterns. Finally, our results reveal an interesting contribution
of morphological awareness to spelling. As mentioned before, children with dyslexia use morphological knowledge when spelling. In addition, French children
with dyslexia have been shown to be sensitive to morphological structure when
manipulating language (Casalis, Col, & Sopo, 2004). Result of the present study
indicates that this knowledge contributes to spelling in dyslexia. Besides, morphological awareness has been proven to contribute to spelling in normal spellers
(Casalis, Deacon, & Pacton, 2011). Given that French orthography is at least partly
based on morphology, this could be a future direction to explore.
NOTE
1. Because pseudowords can only be spelled according to a phonological procedure, only
phonological accuracy can be scored for these items.
REFERENCES
Alegria, J., & Mousty, P. (1996).The development of spelling procedures in French-speaking,
normal and reading-disabled children: Effects of frequency and lexicality. Journal of
shallow orthographies: Phonological, lexical and grammatical skills in learning to spell
Italian. In V. W. Berninger (Ed.). Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing
research to cognitive psychology (pp. 359387). New York, NY: Psychology Press/Taylor
Francis Group.
Benton, A.L. (1982). Test de rtention visuelle. [Visual memory test] Paris, France:ECPA.
Berninger, V., Nielsen, K., Abbott, R., Wijsman, E., & Raskind, W. (2008). Writing problems
in developmental dyslexia: Under-recognized and under-treated. Journal of School
Bourassa, D., & Treiman, R. (2003). Spelling in dyslexic children: Analyses from the
Treiman-Bourassa Early Spelling Test. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 309333.
Bruck, M., & Treiman, R. (1990). Phonological awareness and spelling in normal children and
dyslexics:The case of initial consonant clusters. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
50, 156178.
Casalis, S., Col, P., & Sopo, D. (2004). Morphological awareness in developmental dyslexia.
Annals of Dyslexia, 54(1), 114138.
Casalis, S., Deacon, H., & Pacton S. (2011). How specific is the connection between morphological awareness and spelling? Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 499511.
Cassar, M., Treiman, R., Moats, L., Pollo, T.C., & Kessler, B. (2005). How do the spellings of
children with dyslexia compare with those of typical children? Reading and Writing, 18,
2749. doi:10.1007/s11145-004-2345-x
Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC:Adual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108(1),
Jan 2001, 204256. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.1.204
Content, A., Mousty, P., & Radeau, M. (1990). Brulex:une base de donnes lexicales informatises pour le franais crit et parl. LAnne Psychologique, 90, 551566.
Davies, R.A., & Weekes, B.S. (2005). Effects of feedforward and feedback consistency on reading and spelling in dyslexia. Dyslexia, 11, 233252.
De Luca, M., Borrellia, M., Judica, A., Spinelli, D., & Zoccolotti, P. (2002). Reading words and pseudowords:An eye movement study of developmental dyslexia. Brain and Language, 80, 617626.
Deacon, S.H., Benere, J., & Castles, A. (2012). Chicken or egg? Untangling the relationship
between orthographic processing and reading. Cognition, 122, 110117.
Deacon, S. H., Conrad, N., & Pacton, S. (2008). A statistical learning perspective on childrens learning about graphotactic and morphological regularities in spelling. Canadian
Fayol, M., Zorman, M., & Lt, B. (2009). Associations and dissociations in reading and
spelling French. Unexpectedly poor and good spellers. British Journal of Educational
Frith, U. (1980). Unexpected spelling problems. In U. Frith (Ed.), Cognitive processes in spelling
(pp. 495515). London, England:Academic Press.
Landerl, K., & Wimmer, H. (2000). Development of word reading fluency and spelling in a
consistent orthography:An 8-year follow-up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1),
150161. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.150
Lefavrais, P. (2005). Test de lAlouette-R [The Larkin Test]. Paris, France:Les Editions du Centre
de Psychologie Appliquee.
Lt, B., Peereman, R., & Fayol, M. (2008). Phoneme-to-grapheme consistency and
word-frequency effects on spelling among first- to fifth-grade French children:Aregression-based study. Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 952977.
Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals of
Dyslexia, 53, 114.
Martinet, C., Valdois, S., & Fayol, M. (2004). Lexical orthographic knowledge develops from
the beginning of literacy acquisition. Cognition, 91, B1122.
Mousty, P. Leybaert, J., Alegria, J., Content, A., & Morais, J. (1994). BELEC. Batterie
dvaluation du langage crit et de ces troubles. In J. Grgoire et B. Pirart (Eds.), Evaluer
les troubles de la lecture. Les nouveaux modles thoriques et leurs implications diagnostiques
(pp. 127145). Brussels, Belgium:De Boeck.
Pacton, S., Fayol, M., & Perruchet, P. (2002). The acquisition of untaught orthographic regularities in French. In L. Verhoeven, C. Erlbro, d P.Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional
literacy (pp. 121136). Dordrecht, Netherlands:Kluwer.
Pacton, S., Fayol, M., & Perruchet, P. (2005). Childrens implicit learning of Graphotactic and
Morphological regularities. Child development, 76, 324339.
Peereman, R., Lt, B., & Sprenger-Charolles, L. (2007). Manulex-infra: Distributional

characteristics of grapheme-phoneme mappings, and infralexical and lexical units in
child-directed written material. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 593603.
Romani, C., Di Betta, A.-M., & Tsouknida, E. (2008). Lexical and non lexical processing in
developmental dyslexia: a case for different resources and different impairments.
Cognitive Neuropsychology, 25(6), 798830.
Share, D. L. (1999). Phonological recoding and orthographic learning: a direct test of the
self-teaching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72, 95129.
Sprenger-Charolles, L., Siegel, L., Bchennec, D., & Serniclaes, W. (2003). Development of
phonological and orthographic processing in reading aloud, in silent reading, and in
spelling: A four-year longitudinal study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 84,
167263.
Sprenger-Charolles, L., Col, P., Kipffer-Piquard, A., Pinton, F., & Billard, C. (2009).
Reliability and prevalence of an atypical development of phonological skills in
French-speaking dyslexics. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Jounal, 22,
811842.
Treiman, R. (1993). Beginning to spell:Astudy of first-grade children. NewYork, NY:Oxford
University Press.
Van Ijzendoorn, M.H., & Bus, A.G. (1994). Meta-analytic confirmation of the non-word reading deficit in development al dyslexia. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 266275.
Wimmer, H. (1996). The nonword reading deficit in developmental dyslexia: Evidence
from children learning to read german. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 61,
8090.
Wimmer, H., Mayringer, H., & Landerl, K. (2000). The double-deficit hypothesis and difficulties in learning to read a regular orthography. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92,
668680.
Ziegler, J. C., Jacobs, A. M., & Stone, G. O. (1996). Statistical analysis of the bidirectional
inconsistency of spelling and sound in French. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments,
& Computers, 28, 504515.
CHAPTER16
Written Spelling in Spanish-Speaking

FR ANCISCA SERR ANO AND S YLVI A DEFIOR
ccording to cross-linguistic studies (Defior, Martos, & Cary, 2002; Serrano,

Genard, et al., 2011; Seymour, Aro, & Erskine, 2003) Spanish is an alphabetic written system positioned on the transparent side of the European orthographies opacity-transparency continuum (Frost, Katz, & Bentin, 1987). As a
transparent orthography, it is characterized by a high degree of consistency in terms of
grapheme-phoneme relationships; actually, it is mainly governed by biunivocal1 grapheme to phoneme correspondence (GPC) rules for reading and phoneme-grapheme
correspondence (PGC) rules for spelling (Defior & Serrano, 2007). However, it does
present certain complexities that make the process of literacy acquisition harder to
accomplish, especially in spelling (Defior, Jimenez Fernandez, & Serrano, 2009).
Cross-linguistic studies address the importance of the orthography characteristics and
the childrens linguistic environment on literacy acquisition (Serrano et al., 2011; Seymour
et al., 2003). The relevance of cultural practices, mainly school and home literacy practices
has also been highlighted (Snchal & LeFevre, 2002; Valle & Defior, 2011).
Spelling differs from reading with regard to the nature of processes involved;
spelling requires additional productive processes (in-out) than those needed in
reading. In addition, spelling and reading may differ in consistency, with spelling
normally found to be more inconsistent than reading in many languages. Recently,
Caravolas, Lervg et al. (2012) showed the difference in consistency between reading and spelling in four European languages (English, Spanish, Czech, and Slovak).
Orthographic consistency was estimated as the frequency with which a particular
graphemephoneme (for reading) and phoneme-grapheme (for spelling) mapping
occurs divided by the total frequency of the grapheme/phoneme, no matter how
it is pronounced/spelled (consistency values range from 0 to 1). The estimates for
reading/spelling consistency were: English .72/.62, Czech .90/.92, Slovak .90/.92,

Spanish .96/.90, showing differences in consistency across languages and regarding
reading and spelling in each language (Caravolas et al., 2012).
Thus, in Spanish, previous research has shown how spelling is characterized
by a greater degree of opacity than reading (Caravolas et al., 2012), mainly due
to the existence of the inconsistent graphonemes ( Jimnez, Defior, Cantos, &
Serrano, 2006). In the case of Spanish, spelling is characterized by the presence of
phoneme-grapheme inconsistencies. That is, there are often several possibilities to
write a word, all of them phonologically but not orthographically correct, such as
in Spanish the word barco (meaning ship) and the pseudomophone varco, that
is sounded like the real word, namely barco, because both graphemes b and v are
sounded /b/. These inconsistencies are caused by sound patterns that can be represented by two or more different graphemes (Stone, Vanhoy, & Van Orden, 1997).
For example, in Spanish, /b/ can be represented b, v or w, like in beso /beso/ kiss ,
vaso /baso/ glass or wter /bater/ w.c. and /x/ can be represented g or
j, like in gente /xente/ people or in jefe /xefe/ boss. When confronted with
inconsistent graphonemes,2 writers cannot determine the correct grapheme by
only applying PGC rules; they have to rely on other kind of knowledge like wordspecific (lexical), morphological, or semantic knowledge (Defior, Alegria, Titos, &
Martos, 2008; Ehri, 1993).
The asymmetry in opacity between reading and spelling is another factor that
may partly account for the greater difficulty of spelling over reading (Ehri, 1997;
Jimnez-Fernndez etal., 2006; Landerl, Thaler, & Reitsma, 2008). For example,
Jimnez-Fernndez etal. (2006) using the same set of words in reading and spelling tasks showed that Spanish-speaking children acquire reading skills earlier than
spelling skills. In contrast, they reached the ceiling effect in reading as early as the
second year of primary education, but the ceiling effect in spelling was not observed
even in the fourth grade.
The orthographic code complexities may affect differentially both phonological and orthographic procedures of spelling (Alegra & Mousty, 1994; Brown
& Ellis, 1994). Previous studies have shown that the presence of complex graphonemes affects the processing of English word and pseudoword reading (e.g.,
Rastle & Coltheart, 1998; Venezky, 1970; 1999) as well as in Italian (Burani,
Barca, & Ellis, 2006), French (Rey & Schiller, 2005)and Spanish (Defior etal.,
2009).
Defior et al. (2009) investigated how typically developing children learn the
Spanish spelling rules (consistent and inconsistent graphonemes and words with
a stress mark), as well as how their word-specific knowledge develops from first
to fourth grade. Results pointed out the effect of grade and type of complexity on
spelling performance, showing that children acquire spelling skills early in terms of
phoneme-grapheme correspondence rules, but word-specific knowledge develops
more slowly. This study highlighted the importance of word-specific knowledge, as
well as the need of prosodic knowledge for using the stress mark, being the spelling
W r i t t e n Sp e ll i n g i n Spa n i s h- Sp e a k i n g C h i l d r e n w i t h D y s l e x i a [ 2 1 5 ]
of inconsistent graphonemes and the rules for the use of stress mark the hardest for
children to learn.
Goulandris review (2003) across different orthographies shows how orthographic consistency not only influences the development of reading and spelling
in typically developing children, but also may affect the manifestation of dyslexia.
Further research in different orthographies has supported this statement (e.g.,
Berninger, Nielsen, Abbott, Wijsman, & Raskind, 2008; Chung, Ho, Chan, Tsang,
& Lee, 2011; Maughan, Messer, Collishaw, Pickles, Snowling, Yule, & Rutter, 2009).
Dyslexia is a specific learning disability with neurological origin, characterized by
difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and
decoding abilities (IDA, 2002). It is associated with phonological processing deficits
(Paulesu etal., 2001), which are closely related to the development of poor reading
and spelling skills (Caravolas, Hulme, & Snowling, 2001; Wagner etal., 1997). This
learning disability is persistent, and it affects people of otherwise normal intellectual
capacity. Children with dyslexias poorly developed decoding skills make it difficult
for them to build up complete and accurate orthographic representations of words
in long-term memory; this, in turn, may contribute to their spelling problems, particularly when simply sounding out a word will not produce the correct spelling
(Alegria & Mousty, 1994; Snowling, 2000) and when specific word knowledge is
needed.
A greater chance of school drop-out, low educational achievement, and unemployment (e.g., Daniel, Walsh, Goldston, Arnold, Reboussin, & Wood, 2006), as
well as emotional and behavioral problems (e.g., Morgan, Farkas, Tufis, & Sperling,
2008)have been associated with difficulties in dyslexia as well.
Children with dyslexias spelling problems generally persist into adulthood (e.g.,
Berninger etal., 2006; Bruck, 1993). Some studies have shown that phonological
representation deficits might be responsible for more persistent spelling than reading difficulties (Bruck & Treiman 1990; Cassar, Treiman, Moats, Cury Pollo, &
Kessler, 2005), due to the greater difficulty of spelling over reading (Ehri, 1997;
Jimnez-Fernndez etal., 2006; Landerl etal., 2008).
In this chapter, we present a study exploring spelling difficulties at the word
level in Spanish-speaking children with dyslexia. We are interested in examining
the influence of the Spanish orthographic code complexities on these difficulties.
For complexities of the orthographic code, we defined the phoneme-to-grapheme
correspondence (PGC from now on) complex rules, such as the digraphs, contextual influence, and position influence; additionally we also considered the inconsistent phoneme-to-grapheme correspondence, the silent letter h, and the stress-mark
assignment rules (these complexities will be illustrated in the Method section; also,
for a detailed description, see Defior et al., 2009). Besides these orthographic code
complexities, Spanish counts another phonological complexity, the consonant
cluster. There are some consonant clusters (tr, pl, pr, dr, fr, fl, gr, gl, cr, cl, br, bl), that
can appear only in syllable-onset position. The spelling of consonant cluster poses
a major phonological difficulty to young children because the clusters are treated
as phonological units and are difficult to segment into their separate phonemes
(Treiman, 1993). Studies both in English (Bruck & Treiman, 1990) and Spanish
(Defior, Martos, & Aguilar, 2003) have shown childrens difficulties in consonant
cluster spelling in early writing acquisition. These difficulties might reflect a general
problem in phonological segmentation, more concretely, to analyze spoken syllables into phonemes; the high level of coarticulation of the consonant phonemes
in the cluster might contribute to this difficulty. Previous research has shown that
this type of syllabic structure negatively affects children with dyslexias spelling performance more than typically developing childrens one (Serrano & Defior, 2011).
The main aims of this study were:
- To study spelling difficulties at the word level in Spanish-speaking children with
dyslexia, comparing their performance with two groups of typically developing
childrenone matched for chronological age and one matched for reading age
- To test the influence of the Spanish orthographic code complexities on these
difficulties.
METHOD
Participants
Thirty-one children with dyslexia (mean age=11.8years old; range=9.6 to

16.9 years old; 15 girls and 16 boys) were selected from a sample of nearly
100 children with learning difficulties from third grade of primary education
to fourth grade of secondary education. All of them were pointed out as having reading and writing difficulties by their teachers and had received literacy
skills-based treatment to overcome their difficulties. This treatment was carried
out in private psychological clinics or at school and primarily consisted of phonological processing exercises (word recognition and phonological awareness).
As part of the selection process, PROLEC standardized subtest of pseudoword
reading (Cuetos, Rodrguez, & Ruano, 1996)for participants up to the fourth year
of primary education and PROLEC-SE (Ramos & Cuetos, 1999)for children from
the fifth year of primary education onward, were administered. Cognitive ability
was assessed with SPM scale of RAVEN test (Raven, 1995).
Dyslexic (DX) groups selection was made following the diagnostic criteria of
the DSM-IV-R (First et al., 2002), that is, literacy achievement, evaluated with a
standardized reading test, was below expectations given age, cognitive ability and
educational opportunities. Therefore, all children were evaluated with literacy
and cognitive ability tests to ensure they have a specific problem in literacy skills.
Children with dyslexia were selected as a function of being below the 25th percentile in pseudoword reading (accuracy, speed, or both) and an averaged performance
on cognitive ability (mean percentile score above 50).
Two control groups were also selected, following a reading-level match design.
The chronological age-matched group (CA) was composed of 31 typically developing children (mean age=11.9years old; range=9.6 to 16.2years old; 19 girls
and 12 boys) who were matched to the children with dyslexia children on age. The
reading level-matched group (RL) was composed of 31 typically developing children (mean age=9.8years old; range=7.7 to 10.4years old; 19 girls and 12 boys)
selected to be of the same reading age/level as the children with dyslexia. Reading
age/level was determined by the PEREL test (Soto, Sebastin, & Maldonado,
1992). This is the only test assessing reading age in Spanish up to 9years. This test
was used in absence of tests assessing spelling-age in Spanish.
None of the children in control groups had delayed reading, spelling, or low cognitive ability as a function of their results in the standardized subtests described.
Children in each of the three groups had comparable social background. All of
them were recruited from schools in the same city area. Finally, all the participants
had to meet the following other criteria: (a) averaged to high cognitive ability, (b)
no known neurological deficits, (c) no sensory (visual or auditory) impairments,
or, if they existed, they were corrected, (d) regular school attendance. Children who
did not fulfill these requirements were not included in the study. Characteristics of
the sample can be observed in Table 16.1.
Table16.1 SAMPLE FEATURES. MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION
Group
Age (months)
Dyslexia
n=31
Reading
level-matched
n=31
Chronological
age-matched
n=31
Comparisons Effect size

pvalue
d
140
110,77
141,23
DX=CA>RL**
Intelligence
(24.74)
59.19
(8.86)
56.03
(25.01)
61.35
ns
(Raven test)
(16.08)
(31.06)
(26.04)
.31
-mean percentile
scorePseudoword
24.40
90.50
77.30
DX<CA**
.74
(29.00)
(6.60)
(32.40)
DX<RL**
.42
scoreReading age
100,87
102,83
+ 118
(months)
(6,88)
(7,48)
reading
-mean percentil
ns
(P.E.R.E.L.
test)1
*p < .05; **p < .01.
P.E.R.E.L.test is a standardized reading test comprising 1st to 3rd grade of primary school population. Therefore,
the test maximum possible score is 9;10years old. CA group children exceed this reading level, thus the maximum
test reading score was assigned to this group.
1
Instruments and Procedure
A word dictation task was carried out. A total of 102 medium frequency (500 to 100
occurrences) words were selected from a dictionary of word frequency for Spanishspeaking children (Martnez Martn & Garca Prez, 2004). The overall range of frequency in the dictionary is 5.000 to 0.1 occurrences. Disyllabic and trisyllabic words
were used.
Simple graphoneme words, words with consonant cluster, and words with complex and inconsistent graphonemes and stress mark were selected. The complexities
of the Spanish spelling system were grouped into 6 categories: digraph, contextual
influence, position influence, inconsistency, letter h + vowel, and stress mark, following the study of Defior et al. (2009). Here, is a short description of the types of
complexity studied:
(a) Simple graphonemes. Words included only biunivocal phoneme-tographeme correspondence rules (1 sound: 1 letter). For example, diana
dardboard /diana/.
(b) Consonant clusters. Words included one consonant cluster (tr, pl, pr, dr, fr,
fl, gr, gl, cr, cl, br, bl), appearing only in syllable-onset position. For example,
prensa press /prensa/.
(c) Digraph. Words included a phoneme represented by a grapheme compound
of two letters (correspondence 1:2); for example, chiste joke /ciste/ in
which phoneme /c/ is represented by ch.
(d) Contextual influence. Words included a consonantal phoneme whose
transcription depends on the sound of the accompanying vowel; e.g., cisne
swan /isne/ where the phoneme // followed by /e/, /i/ is spelled with
a c but if accompanied by /a/, /o/, /u/ it is spelled with a z; e.g., zapato
shoe /apato/.
(e) Position influence. Words included a phoneme whose transcription depends
on its position in the word; e.g., the case of /r/, which is transcribed as r in
the initial position (rosa rose /rosa/) and rr (perro dog /pero/) in the
inter-vowel position.
(f) Inconsistency. Words containing a phoneme that may be represented by two
or more graphemes without any rule determining the appropriate grapheme; for example, /b/ can be represented by v, b, or w, for example, vaca
cow and baca roof rack, both pronounced /b/. Specific word knowledge is needed to correctly write these words.
(g) Letter h + vowel. Words included the letter H followed by a vowel, which is a
silent letter in Spanish, e.g., helado ice cream /elado/. It is another inconsistent category; specific word knowledge is needed to correctly write these
words.
(h) Stress mark. Words containing a stress mark for the tonic vowel, for example, sultn sultan /sultan/. Prosodic knowledge plus stress mark rules are
needed to correctly write these words.
The test was carried out in group session in the case of control group participants, and individually for children with dyslexia; adequate testing conditions were
assured. Children were told to write the words in the spaces indicated for this purpose on a sheet of paper. Each word was pronounced twice.
RESULTS
Table16.2 shows the mean percentage of correct responses and the standard deviation in words spelling as a function of group, length and type complexity.
A 3 (group) x 2 (length) x 8 (complexity) ANOVA was performed, respectively.
The between-subjects factor was group (dyslexia, CA, RL), and length (dysillabic and trisyllabic) and complexity (simple, consonant cluster, digraph, contextual effect, position effect, inconsistency, letter H + vowel, and stress mark) were
within-subjects factors.
The analysis showed a main effect of group F(2, 90) = 31.38, p < .001, d
= .41; complexity F(7,630) = 232.96, p < .001, d = .92, and length F(1,90) =
24.73, p < .001, d = .22. Overall, performance was lower for trisyllabic than
disyllabic words.
The pairwise comparison (Tukey-HSD) regarding group showed significant differences between the dyslexia group and the CA group (p < .001),
showing that children with dyslexia had a lower spelling performance than the
children of the same chronological age. There were no differences between
the dyslexia and RL group. RL group had a lower performance than CA group
(p < .001).
The interactions group x complexity, F(14,630) = 10.85, p < .001, d = .22, and
complexity x length F(7,630) = 6.23, p < .01, d = .07, were also significant.
For the purposes of this chapter, we will focus on the detailed analysis of the
significant interaction group x complexity, which will show how the complexities
affect group differences and thus characterize children with dyslexia spelling performance compared to those of the control groups.
The posthoc analysis (Tukey-HSD) in simple graphoneme category showed
significant differences between the dyslexia group and the CA group (p < .01),
showing that participants with dyslexia had a lower spelling performance than
the children of the same chronological age but similar performance to RL
group.
More interestingly, the posthoc analysis of group (Tukey-HSD) in consonant
cluster (CC) and digraph showed significant differences between the dyslexia group
and both CA group (p < .001) and RL group (p < .05 in CC and p < .02 in digraph).
Table16.2 AVERAGED PERCENTAGE OF CORRECT WORD SPELLING

(AND STANDARD DEVIATION) AS A FUNCTION OF GROUP, LENGTH,
AND COMPLEXITY
Simple
Consonant cluster
Dyslexia
CA
Di
96.13
99.35
96.77
Tri
(8.03)
90.78
(3.59)
98.62
(10.45)
90.78
(11.98)
(4.29)
(11.4)
85.48
97.18
90.73
(19.66)
(11.51)
(14.42)
82.8
97.85
90.86
(20.41)
(9.37)
(12.05)
76.77
95.48
85.16
(19.39)
(8.5)
(19.98)
Di
Tri
Digraph
Di
Tri
Contextual effect
Di
Tri
Position effect
Di
Tri
Inconsistency
Di
Tri
Letter h + vowel
Di
Tri
Stress Mark
RL
70.32
89.68
81.94
(20.57)
(14.49)
(20.24)
85.48
95.97
91.94
(27.97)
(13.07)
(17.54)
83.87
88.71
79.03
(29.96)
(24.87)
(33.6)
89.68
93.55
87.74
(17.03)
(11.99)
(14.31)
83.87
95.48
87.74
(14.07)
(8.5)
(15.21)
55.3
83.18
53.23
(21.19)
(16.24)
(20.11)
47.98
77.62
52.22
(18.36)
(17.81)
(19.4)
43.23
75.48
41.29
(28.8)
(31.71)
(31.38)
23.23
60.65
27.74
(23.72)
(28.51)
(26.17)
Di
13.55
66.45
23.23
Tri
(23.32)
14.19
(31.15)
69.03
(26.88)
28.39
(22.03)
(37.54)
(29.56)
Thus, participants with dyslexia had a lower spelling performance than both the children of the same chronological age and the same reading level, and thereby younger,
in these two categories.
Regarding the categories position influence, inconsistency, letter h and stress
mark, the posthoc analysis (Tukey-HSD) showed significant differences between
the dyslexia group and the CA group (p < .01), showing that children with dyslexia had a lower spelling performance than the children of the same chronological
age. There were no differences between the dyslexia and RL group. RL group had
a lower performance than CA group (p < .01). Finally, in contextual influence the
effect of group was not found. Therefore, no differences can be reported among
groups in this type of complexity.
DISCUSSION
This chapter examined spelling difficulties in Spanish-speaking children with dyslexia, mainly focusing on how Spanish writing code complexities influence literacy
abilities in children with dyslexia. Results evidenced children with dyslexia present low performance in simple and complex word spelling, and they show that the
development of the spelling procedures is affected by the orthographic consistency
and the languages features of the written system in which children are learning
(Defior et al., 2009).
Overall, children with dyslexia have lower performance than their peers
matched on age and academic experience, as expected by the definition of dyslexia
itself. This effect is consistently observed in both simple and complex items; this
result matches previous findings in typically developing children (Defior et al.,
2009).
The comparison between dyslexia and the reading level-matched control group
is more interesting because the effect of reading skill is controlled. We found
that children with dyslexia have a lower spelling performance than the typically
developing younger children when they have to write words with consonant cluster and digraphs. Moreover, the spelling problems appear to be persistent. At the
same time, the deficit is found to have a phonological nature as it is evidenced in
a phonological-processing demanding structure like the consonant cluster and
digraph.
Children with dyslexia have difficulties with consonant clusters, even though
the syllabic structure is orthographically consistentboth consonants inside the
cluster are pronounced. This result is related to the idea that consonant-cluster
spelling could be difficult at the beginning of literacy acquisition (Defior, et al.,
2003; Treiman, 1993). At that point, children have not mastered phonological
abilities enough, and students may have difficulties segmenting the cluster into its
components. Nevertheless, the phonological deficit keeps children with dyslexia in
this early phase of spelling development (Serrano & Defior, 2012).
Previous studies (Defior, Cantos, Jimenez Fernandez, & Serrano, 2007)showed
that spelling of words with digraphs is normally achieved at the end of second grade;
that is, 2years of formal instruction in spelling is enough for typically developing
children for learning it. However, children with dyslexia persist having difficulties
with it along their academic life.
Therefore, both consonant cluster and digraph difficulties can be interpreted as

a marker of the phonological deficit and poor phonological skills in children with
dyslexia. Certainly, many theorists consider phonological processing difficulties to
be the core deficit in dyslexia (Ramus, 2003; also see Snowling, 2000 for a review).
These difficulties can be related to children with dyslexia having problems in phonemic segmentation abilities, which are especially relevant in spelling acquisition
and development in alphabetic systems (Ball & Blachman, 1988).
Also related to the phonological deficit is the finding of a general lower performance in contextual and position-influence categories, although these results do
not reach statistical significance. Maybe this result is due to the items selected in
these categories or the wide age range of participants.
Moreover, the lowest spelling performance in children with dyslexia is found
in other complex categories such as stress mark as well as inconsistency and letterh complexities, but only in comparison with children of the same chronological
age. As noted by Defior et al. (2009), types of knowledge other than phonological
knowledge are needed for spelling words with inconsistency (word-specific knowledge) and stress mark (prosodic knowledge). These types of knowledge are normally acquired later than second grade of primary school; as some of the RL group
children in this study were in second grade (RL group age range from 7.7 to 10.4
years old), this could be the reason for the unexpected lack of differences regarding RL group control. It may be that RL children have not mastered the needed
skills for their age and school level, and thus, the children with dyslexia, despite
their advanced age and school experience, remain in early phases of literacy development. This may account for the absence of dyslexia and RL groups differences
in these complexities.
To conclude, the findings add evidence of the phonological processing deficits
in Spanish-speaking children with dyslexia that result in their persistent difficulty in
writing words with consonant clusters and digraphs. This happens despite Spanish
orthographys shallowness as well as childrens previous treatment based on phonological abilities. Because of these difficulties, children with dyslexia might remain
blocked in spelling development that indirectly affects the development of orthographic word-specific knowledge.
Some important implications for dyslexia assessment and intervention in
Spanish can be derived from these results. For example, the use of more complex written materials (more phonologically demanding words like those with
consonant cluster and digraphs) could reduce orthographic consistency facilitation, as well as children with dyslexias compensatory strategies, especially in a
transparent written system like Spanish. Thus, using assessment materials that
include consonant cluster, or complex graphonemes, could help to detect difficulties more easily. This, in turn, might help intervention planning, and children
could benefit from special intervention measures designed as a function of their
specific difficulties in spelling. Therefore, to use more phonologically demanding material in assessment and later in intervention actions may add efficiency
to treatments for children with dyslexia, which is finally a significant goal of our
daily professional activity.
AUTHOR NOTES
The research reported in this chapter is funded by the MICIN Project

PSI2010-21983-C02-01, FEDER funding and the Junta de Andaluca research
group HUM 820.
NOTES
1. In the biunivocal rules, there is one-to-one grapheme-to-phoneme and phoneme-tographeme correspondence (1 letter:1 sound; 1 sound:1 letter).
2. The term graphoneme refers to the relationship between phoneme and grapheme.
REFERENCES
Alegria, J., & Mousty, P. (1994). On the development of lexical and non-lexical spelling procedures of French speaking normal and disabled children. In G. Brown & N. C.Ellis
(Eds.), Handbook of spelling:Theory, process and intervention (pp. 211226). Chichester,
England:Wiley.
Ball, E.W., & Blachman, B.A. (1988). Phoneme segmentation training:Effect on reading readiness. Annals of Dyslexia, 38, 208225. doi:10.1007/BF02648257
Berninger, V.W., Abbott, R.D., Thomson, J., Wagner, R., Swanson, H.L., Wijsman, E.M., &
Raskind, W. (2006). Modeling phonological core deficits within a working memory
architecture in children and adults with developmental dyslexia. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 10(2), 165198. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr1002_3
Berninger, V.W., Nielsen, K.H., Abbott, R.D. Wijsman, E., Raskind, W. (2008). Writing problems in developmental dyslexia:Under-recognized and under-treated. Journal of school
psychology, 46(1), 121. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.11.008
Brown, G.D. A., & Ellis, N.C. (1994). Handbook of spelling:Theory, process and intervention.
Chinchester, England:Wiley.
Bruck, M. (1993). Component spelling skills of college students with childhood diagnoses of
dyslexia. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 171184. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.
org/stable/1511325.
Bruck, M., & Treiman, R. (1990). Phonological awareness and spelling in normal children and
dyslexic:The case of initial consonant clusters. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
50, 156178. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(90)90037-9
Burani, C., Barca, L., & Ellis, A. W. (2006). Orthographic complexity and word naming in
Italian:Some words are more transparent than others. Psychological Bulletin and Review,
13, 346352. doi:10.3758/BF03193855
Caravolas, M., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2001). The foundations of spelling ability: Evidence from a 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Memory and Language, 45,
751774. doi:10.1006/jmla.2000.2785
Caravolas, M., Lervg, A., Mousikou, P., Efrim, C., Litavsk, M., Onochie-Quintanilla,
E.,...& Hulme, C. (2012). Common patterns of prediction of literacy development in different alphabetic orthographies. Psychological Science, 23(6), 678686.
doi:10.1177/0956797611434536
Cassar, M., Treiman, R., Moats, L., Cury Pollo, T., & Kessler, B. (2005). How do the spellings of children with dyslexia compare with those of nondyslexic children? Reading and
Writing:An Interdisciplinary Journal, 18, 2749. doi:10.1007/s11145-004-2345-x
Chung, K.K. H.; Ho, C.S. H; Chan, D.W., Tsang, S., & Lee, S. (2011). Cognitive skills and
literacy performance of Chinese adolescents with and without dyslexia. Reading and
Writing, 24(7), 835859. doi:10.1007/s11145-010-9227-1
Cuetos, F., Rodrguez, B., & Ruano, E. (1996). PROLEC:Batera de evaluacin de los procesos
lectores de los nios de Educacin Primaria [PROLEC:Reading processes assessment battery
in primary school]. Madrid:TEA.
Daniel, S. S., Walsh, A. K., Goldston, D. B., Arnold, E. M., Reboussin, B. A., & Wood, F. B.
(2006). Suicidality, school dropout, and reading problems among adolescents. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 39, 507514. doi:10.1177/00222194060390060301
Defior, S., Alegra, J., Titos, R., & Martos, F. (2008). Using morphology when spelling in a
shallow orthographic system:The case of Spanish. Cognitive Development, 23, 204215.
doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2007.01.003
Defior, S., Serrano, F., Cantos, I., & Jimnez Fernndez, G. (2007). Evolucin de la escritura
de los dgrafos del castellano [Digraph-spelling development in Spanish]. In R. Mairal
Usn, etal. (Eds.), Aprendizaje de lenguas, uso del lenguaje y modelacin cognitiva:perspectivas aplicadas entre disciplinas. Actas del XXIV Congreso Internacional AESLA. [Language
learning, use and cognitive modelling:applied perspectives. Proceedings of XXIV Congreso
Internacional AESLA]. (pp. 10391046). Madrid, Spain:UNED.
Defior, S., Jimnez-Fernndez, G., & Serrano, F. (2009). Complexity and lexicality effects on
the acquisition of Spanish spelling. Learning and Instruction, 19, 5565. doi:10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2008.01.005
Defior, S., Martos, F., & Aguilar, E. (2003). Influence of reading level on word spelling according to the phonemegrapheme relationship. In R. M. Joshi, C. K. Leong, & B. L. J.
Kaczmarek (Eds.), Literacy acquisition:The role of phonology, morphology and orthography (pp. 131151). Amsterdam, Netherlands:IOS Press.
Defior, S., Martos, F., & Cary, L. (2002). Differences in reading acquisition development in two
shallow orthographies:Portuguese and Spanish. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 135148.
doi:10.1017/S0142716402000073
Defior, S., & Serrano, F. (2007). La habilidad de escritura: Palabras y composicin escrita
[Spelling ability:Words and written composition]. In F. Justicia, E. Fernndez de Haro
& M. C.Pichardo (Eds.), Enciclopedia de Psicologa de la Educacin [Encyclopedia of
Educational Psychology] (pp. 95126). Archidona, Spain:Aljibe.
Defior, S., Serrano, F., Cantos, I., & Jimnez Fernndez, G. (2007). Evolucin de la escritura
de los dgrafos del castellano. En R. Mairal Usn, M. Aragons Gonzlez, S. Barreiro
Bilbao, N. etal. (Eds.), Aprendizaje de lenguas, uso del lenguaje y modelacin cognitiva:perspectivas aplicadas entre disciplinas. Actas del XXIV Congreso Internacional AESLA (pp.
10391046). Madrid:UNED.
Ehri, L.C. (1993). How English orthography influences phonological knowledge as children
learn to read and spell. In R. J.Scales (Ed.), Literacy and language analysis (pp. 2143).
Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Ehri, L. C. (1997). Learning to read and learning to spell are one and the same, almost. In
A. Perfetti, L. Rieben, & M. Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell (pp. 237270). London,
England:Erlbaum.
First, M.B., Frances, A., Pincus, H.A., Massana Montejo, G.T., Massana Montejo, E.T., &
Valds Miyar, M.R. (2002). DSM-IV-TR:Manual de diagnstico diferencial [DSM-IV-TR.
Differential diagnosis manual]. Barcelona, Spain:Masson, S.A.
Frost, R., Katz, L., & Bentin, S. (1987). Strategies for visual word recognition and orthographical depth:Amultilingual comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human
Perception and Performance, 13, 104115. doi:0096-1523/87/.75.
Goulandris, N. (Ed.) (2003). Dyslexia in different languages. London, England: Whurr
Publishers.
I.D.A. (2002). International dyslexia association. http://www.interdys.org/
Jimnez-Fernndez, G., Defior, S., Cantos, I., & Serrano, F. (2006). Las complejidades del
lenguaje escrito: Comparacin entre lectura y escritura [Complexities of written language: Comparison between reading and spelling]. In J. Salazar, M. Amengual &
M. Juan (Eds.), Usos sociales del lenguaje y aspectos psicolingsticos: Perspectivas aplicadas [Social uses of language and psycholinguistic aspects] (pp. 343352). Palma de
Mallorca:Universidad de Palma de Mallorca.
Landerl, K., Thaler, V., & Reitsma, P. (2008). Spelling pronunciations: Transforming
irregularity into regularity. Learning and Instruction, 18, 295308. doi:10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2007.10.001
Martnez Martn, J.A., & Garca Prez, E. (2004). Diccionario:Frecuencias del castellano escrito
en nios de 6 a 12 anos [Dictionary: Frequency of written Spanish in children aged 6 to
12years old]. Salamanca, Spain:Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad Pontificia
de Salamanca.
Maughan, B., Messer, J., Collishaw, S., Pickles, A., Snowling, M., Yule, W., & Rutter, M. (2009).
Persistence of literacy problems:spelling in adolescence and at mid-life. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(8), 893901. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02079.x
Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Tufis, P. A., & Sperling, R. A. (2008). Are reading and behavior
problems risk factors for each other? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(5), 417436.
doi:10.1177/0022219408321123
Paulesu, E., Dmonet, J.-F., Fazio, F., McCrory, E., Chanoine, V., Brunswick, N.,...& Frith,
U. (2001). Dyslexia: cultural diversity and biological unity. Science, 291, 21652167.
doi:10.1126/science.1057179
Ramos, F., & Cuetos, F. (1999). PROLEC-SE. Batera de evaluacin de los procesos lectores de los
nios de Educacin Secundaria [PROLEC:Reading processes assessment battery in secondary school]. Madrid, Spain:TEA.
Ramus, F. (2003). Developmental dyslexia: Specific phonological deficit or general sensorimotor dysfunction? Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 13, 212218. doi:10.1016/
S0959-4388(03)00035-7
Rastle, K., & Coltheart, M. (1998). Whammies and double whammies:The effect of length
on nonword reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 277282. doi:10.3758/
BF03212951
Raven, J. (1995). Raven matrices progresivas [Ravens progressive matrices]. Madrid, Spain:TEA.
Rey, A., & Schiller, N.O. (2005). Graphemic complexity and mult81iple print-to-sound associations in visual word recognition. Memory and Cognition, 33(1), 7685. doi:10.3758/
BF03195298
Snchal, M., & LeFevre, J. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of childrens reading skill: A 5-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73, 445460.
doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00417
Serrano, F., & Defior, S. (2012). Spanish dyslexic spelling abilities:The case of consonant clusters.
Journal of Research in Reading, 35(2), 169182. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01454.x
Serrano, F., Genard, N., Sucena, A., Defior, S., Alegria Iscoa, J., Mousty, P., & Leybaert, J.
(2011). Variations in reading and spelling acquisition in Portuguese, French and
Spanish:Across-linguistic comparison. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics, 9(2), 10.
Seymour, P., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition
in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143174.
doi:10.1348/000712603321661859
Snowling, M.J. (2000). Dyslexia. Oxford, England:Blackwell Publishers.
Soto, P., Sebastin, N., & Maldonado, A. (1992). Retraso en lectura:Evaluacin y tratamiento educativo [Delayed reading:Educative assessment and treatment]. Madrid, Spain:Universidad
Autnoma de Madrid.
Stone, G. O., Vanhoy, M., & Van Orden, G. C. (1997). Perception is a two-way street: feed
forward and feedback phonology in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and
Language, 36, 337359. doi:10.1006/jmla.1996.2487
Treiman, R. (1993). Beginning to spell: A study of first grade children. New York NY: Oxford
University Press.
Valle, A., & Defior, S. (2011). Home literacy environments:How parents matter. Oral Presentation
at Eldel Conference, Prague, June 2011.
Venezky, R.L. (1970). The structure of English orthography. The Hague, Netherlands:Mouton.
Venezky, R.L. (1999). The American way of spelling:The structure and origins of American English
orthography. NewYork, NY:Guilford Press.
Wagner, R.K., Torgesen, J.K., Rashotte, C.A., Hecht, S.A., Barker, T.A., Burgess, S.R.,...&
Garon, T. (1997). Changing relations between phonological processing abilities and
word-level reading as children develop from beginning to skilled readers:a 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental psychology, 33(3), 468.
CHAPTER17
The Writing Development of Brazilian

An Evidence-Based Clinical Approach
JANE CORRE A
he degree of regularity of different orthographies influences the development of childrens writing skills. Languages vary in their degree of regularity from shallow or transparent (a high consistency of letter-sound mapping) to
opaque or deep (a high degree of inconsistency of the letter-sound mapping).
In this continuum, Portuguese can be classified as a translucent language as it
is more regular than English (deep orthography) but is not as transparent as
Italian, Spanish, or German, which are considered to be shallow orthographies
(Borgwaldt, Hellwig, & De Groot, 2005). Despite its relatively transparent
orthography Brazilian Portuguese has a complex morphological structure that
children need to master. Therefore, this chapter starts by examining the distinctive features of Brazilian Portuguese (BP) to better understand the difficulties
that Brazilian children with dyslexia have in learning to read and write. In addition, the cognitive skills that underpin this development are considered. A review
of the literature on Brazilian children with dyslexia writing difficulties is presented. Finally, a profile of the writing difficulties of dyslexic children who attend
the social clinic for literacy learning difficulties at the Federal University of Rio
de Janeiro is provided, describing the intervention program designed to develop
their writing skills.
LINGUISTIC FEATURES OF BRAZILIAN PORTUGUESE
One of 10 most widely spoken languages in the world, Portuguese is the official
language in eight countries: Portugal, Brazil, Angola, Cape Verde, Ginea-Bissau,
Mozambique, So Tom and Prncipe and East Timor (Azevedo, 2005). With more
than eight million square kilometers and over 190million inhabitants, Brazil is the
biggest lusophone country (Teyssier, 2007).
Brazilian Portuguese (BP) was influenced by Indian and African languages
(Azevedo, 2005). The BP alphabet has 26 letters and its phonological system comprises 7 vowels, 2 glides, 19 consonants and 3 archiphonemes (Silva, 1999). All consonants are allowed in word-medial and in word-final onsets (Matzenauer, 2004).
However, three consonants cannot appear in the word-initial onset //, // e //,
except in very few foreign words. In onset consonant clusters, the first element can
be either a plosive or a labiodental fricative, the second has to be a liquid /l/ or
//. Only four consonants can be placed as coda /R/, /l/, /S/ e /N/ (Matzenauer,
2004). Postvocalic /N/ (spelled m, n) placed as coda is not pronounced, indicating
that the preceding vowel is nasal.
In BP, unstressed vowels are generally pronounced rather clearly (Azevedo,
2005; Matzenauer, 2004; Silva, 1999). However, in unstressed final position, the
phonological contrasts /e/: /i/ and /o/: /u/ are neutralized. Words spelled with
e or o in unstressed final position tend to be pronounced, respectively, with /i/ or
/u/ (nove /nvi/ nine; gato /gatu/ cat). Although beginners tend to spell the
reduced vowels /e/ and /o/ as i or u, typically children start spelling these endings
conventionally very soon. Children are sensitive to the fact that in BP letters i or u
rarely occur in final position in a word (Cardoso-Martins, 2006).
As for consonants, a unique mapping between letters and phonemes in writing occurs in only six cases (Lemle, 1987). The phonemes /p/, /b/, /f/, /v/, /t/,
/d/ are represented, respectively, by letters p, b, f, b, t, d. However, there are many
cases in which spelling can be predicted by the position of the letter or the sound
in the words (conditional rules). In other cases, morphological knowledge can be
used to spell (morphological rules). The irregularities are restricted to the written
representation of phonemes /z/, /s/, // and // in some orthographic contexts.
In most cases, spelling in BP can be predicted from orthographic rules, there are
few instances where retrieving spelling of known words from memory is necessary
(Faraco, 1992).
In BP, letter-sound correspondences in reading are very regular and pronunciation can often be predicted from the graphemes. For lexical knowledge is only necessary to decode the pronunciation of the letter x (Mousinho & Correa, 2009).
Syllables are prominent sublexical units in BP (Correa, Maclean, Meireles,
Lopes, & Glockling, 2007). The maximal syllable in BP is CCVVCC (Silva, 1999).
The most frequent orthographic syllabic patterns are:CV, CVC, V, CCV, and VC.
The sum of frequencies of these syllabic patterns in the language is estimated to be
93%. The pattern CV alone accounts for 60.6% (Virio & Guimares-Filho, 2007).
Writing Development of Br a zilian Children with Dysle xia [ 2 2 9 ]
This is also the most frequent syllabic pattern in all positions in a word. Open syllables are also preponderant in BP.
Languages can also be distinguished in terms of the type of timing that predominates (Roach, 1982). In stress-timed languages, syllables vary considerably
in length and complexity, whereas syllable-timed languages tend to have relatively
simpler syllable structure (Ramus, Nespor, & Mehler, 1999). Brazilian Portuguese
exhibits mixed rhythmic properties with a relatively high degree of syllable-timing
(Barbosa, 2000; Bisol, 2000). Words with stress on the penultimate syllable (paroxytones) are predominant in BP (Virio & Guimares-Filho, 2007).
Because of the graphophonemic mapping reliability, relative transparent
orthographies create fewer difficulties for childrens learning than deep written
systems (Caravolas & Volin, 2001; Wimmer & Landerl, 1997). Linguistic features
of Brazilian Portuguese enable children to be taught about lettersound correspondences using consonant-vowel (CV) syllables combined into simple familiar
words. Instructional method such as this can be very effective because it gives children the opportunity of (a) becoming aware of phonemic components of words
more easily, which fosters the development of phonemic awareness; (b) developing competent decoding skills, which leads to independent reading; (c) becoming
more easily aware of spelling regularities and (d) quickly writing words and simple
sentences of their own.
THE WRITING DIFFICULTIES OF BRAZILIAN CHILDREN

WITHDYSLEXIA
Brazilian children with dyslexia experience great difficulty in phonological processing and representation (Cardoso-Martins, Correa, & Magalhes, 2010; Mousinho
& Correa, 2009). Their performance is lower than that of their typically developing
peers and their reading-age controls in tasks of phonological awareness (Capellini,
Germano, & Cardoso, 2008; Capellini, Padula et al., 2007), of working memory
(Capellini, Padula et al., 2007) and of rapid automatized naming (Capellini,
Ferreira, et al., 2007). Their difficulties in phonological processing affect their
ability to acquire an accurate and automatic phoneme-grapheme correspondence
(Cardoso-Martins, & Triginelli, 2010). Inevitably, these children experience literacy problems. The more severe their phonological impairment, the more difficult it
is for the children to develop reading and writing skills (Cardoso-Martins, Correa,
& Magalhes, 2010; Mousinho & Correa, 2009). The prevalence of developmental
dyslexia in Brazil has been estimated at 2% to 8% (Ciasca, 2003).
Despite the improvement in reading abilities that can occur overtime, Brazilian
children with dyslexia experience more difficulties in reading than children with
dyslexia learning in more transparent orthographies (Wimmer, 1993;1996).
Improvements in accuracy are not mirrored by equivalent improvements in fluency
in text reading. Brazilian children with dyslexia make longer and more frequent
pauses than their controls in text reading, as well as spending more time decoding
words (Alves, Pinheiro, Reis, & Capellini, 2009).
The spelling difficulties experienced by Brazilian children with dyslexia are often
more severe than their reading problems (Cardoso-Martins, Correa, & Magalhes,
2010; Mousinho, Correa, & Mesquita, 2010). Learning to read and learning to spell
are not the same processes, despite the strong and positive correlation between
them (Ehri, 1997). Reading can be done without the simultaneous act of writing, but reading is embedded in the act of writing. In reading, the reader does not
have to deal with transcription or other demands of text generation. Because of the
nature of BP orthography, Brazilian children have one more factor that enhances
the development of their reading skills. In BP, grapheme-to-phoneme correspondences are more regular than phoneme-to-grapheme mapping.
Difficulties in spelling inconsistent conventions of the writing systems are
common in children with dyslexia (Alegria & Mousty, 1996; Caravolas & Volin,
2001; Thomson, 1990)across languages, including European (Sucena, Castro, &
Seymour, 2009)and Brazilian Portuguese (Zorzi & Ciasca, 2009). As the writing
of typically developing children becomes more conventional, children with dyslexia still experience great difficulty in learning the inconsistencies of BP orthography and this impacts on their spelling development.
Frequently, orthographic errors reflect misspellings that arise from the correct
pronunciation of the target word, despite the use of some unconventional graphemes (Mousinho etal., 2010; Zorzi & Ciasca, 2009). These errors are phonologically plausible errors and their most frequent instances are confusing consonant
graphemes that are representations for the same phoneme in BP or omission of
silent vowels or consonants. These misspellings reveal dyslexics reliance on information about their oral language (spelling as it sounds out) as well as their limited
knowledge of the more complex spelling rules (conditional or morphological rules)
in BP.
The plausible phonological errors described earlier are not produced exclusively
by dyslexic children. Typically developing Brazilian children also produce this type
of misspelling in the first years of their formal instruction in reading and writing
(Mousinho & Correa, 2009; Zorzi & Ciasca, 2009). Children with dyslexia, produce significantly more errors than their typically developing peers. Although typically developing children learn conventional orthography, dyslexics spelling errors
tend to persist over time, typically taking the form of a one-letter-to-one-sound
type of spelling (writing as it sounds).
Brazilian children with dyslexia also produce phonologically implausible
spellings, that is, the misspelled word does not sound like the target word. The
most common phonologically based errors among the children with dyslexia
are associated with grapheme omissions and voiced/voiceless substitutions
(Mousinho et al., 2010; Zorzi & Ciasca, 2009). The majority of cases of grapheme omissions comprise a reduction of complex syllabic patterns of CCV or CVC
to the simpler CV structure. This process includes consonant cluster reduction
(pato /patu/ duck instead of prato /patu/ plate), omission of nasal marks
(mudo /mudu/ deaf as for mundo /mdu/ world) or of a medial coda (cata/
kata/pick as for carta /kaRta/ mail; pata /pata/ paw or female duck
instead of pasta /paSta/ bag`).
Due to their difficulties in phonological processing (Capelline, Ferreira, Salgado,
& Ciasca, 2007; Cardoso-Martins, & Triginelli, 2010), accurate spelling of consonants differing in voicing (voiced/voiceless substitutions), that is failing to discriminate between minimal pairs of phonemes, is a particular problem for Brazilian
children with dyslexia. This is so even in the cases of unique mapping between letter and phonemes (/b/ versus /p/, /t/ versus /d/, /v/ versus /f/) or of regular
dissyllabic words of the type CV, the prototypical syllabic pattern for BP speaking
children. Errors of substitution of voiced for voiceless consonant occur more frequently than the reverse.
Typically developing Brazilian children can also produce phonologically based
errors in their early spellings when their phonological skills are less well-developed
and their knowledge of orthography limited (Correa & Dockrell, 2007; Morais,
2005). In their early stages of learning to read and write, Brazilian children have
difficulties with complex syllabic onset (CCV syllables) and with closed syllables
(CVC, CCVC patterns), reducing complex syllabic patterns to a canonical CV
structure.
Although phonologically inaccurate errors are not exclusively made by children
with dyslexia, their extended nature rather than their occurrence in the early stages
of childrens writing alerts teachers and parents to an underlying learning disorder.
Those errors tend to decrease (even disappear) due to remediation programs that
emphasize phonological awareness and grapheme-phoneme correspondence.
The spelling difficulties experienced by Brazilian children with dyslexia inevitably lead to problems with text generation. The childrens texts have significantly
fewer words than those of their typically developing peers (Mousinho et al.,
2010). Children with dyslexia also experience problems producing coherent texts.
However a more thorough description of the text generation processes in Brazilian
children with dyslexia is still lacking. Over the past years there has been more focus
on the childrens spelling than on the expression of ideas at the level of written texts
(Affonso, Piza, Barbosa, & Macedo, 2010; Zorzi & Ciasca, 2009).
ONCE UPON A TIME.... THEY LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER,

LEARNING TO READ AND WRITE
An evidence-based intervention program for childrens literacy difficulties is held

at the Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. The guidelines adopted as a general framework for intervention conducted by the social clinic for literacy learning
addressed four main aspects: (1) motivation to learn, (2) development of executive
functions, (3) explicit instruction based on the linguistic features of Brazilian

Portuguese and (4) integration of reading and writing.
An important part of the intervention program is related to the development of
childrens writing (Berninger, Nielsen, Abbott, Wijsman, & Raskind, 2008). Texts
produced by children with dyslexia are filled with errors that reveal to everyone
their lack of skills. Our experience of Brazilian children with dyslexia also indicates
that they develop a strong negative feeling toward writing, expressing an intense
dislike of writing-related activities.
The children often develop low self-esteem and tend to think about themselves
only in terms of their deficits (Correa & MacLean, 1999). They also develop low
expectations and motivation, which are often characterized by apathy, by disinterest and, to a lesser extent, by aggressive and oppositional behavior. Thus, the intervention was also designed to address the childrens confidence, motivation, and
engagement levels (Bruning & Horn, 2000). The aim was to provide dyslexics with
a supportive intervention program by means of a positive emotional environment
in which they developed their cognitive and linguistic skills.
Given the history of frustrations and failures in becoming literate for pupils with
dyslexia, incorporating motivation to learn is essential to an effective intervention
program. Motivating dyslexic children to learn in the current program comprised to
providing a supportive emotional environment to promote their self-confidence in
addition to engagement in reading and writing activities (Bruning & Horn, 2000).
In our intervention program, the following guidelines aimed to improve childrens
motivation to learn by (a)giving children choices about what to read and to write;
(b)organizing enjoyable reading and writing activities and putting at childrens disposal a variety of books, comic books, and other printed material; (c)helping children to address their anxiety and frustration with reading and writing.
In developing childrens motivation, it is important to build their confidence in
their potential and general ability. Children need also to know how good they are
at a specific task. Therefore, in addition to recognizing their strengths and weakness, childrens must perform a realistic evaluation of task difficulties. This knowledge is defined as metacognition (Brown, Bransford, Ferrara, & Campione, 1983;
Flavell, 1979). The ability to be aware of their own thinking and learning underpins childrens use of executive function processes, that is, the abilities of planning,
organizing and self-monitoring (Meltzer & Krishnan, 2007).
Executive function processes are related to school achievement, and particularly
to the development of writing (Berninger etal., 2002; Berninger & Graham, 1998).
Children with weaknesses in executive function often struggle in getting started
on their assignments or in finishing their tasks (Meltzer & Krishnan, 2007). They
present difficulties in (a)organizing and monitoring their activities, (b)performing a realistic task evaluation and (c)selecting relevant information. For children
with dyslexia, the development of effective strategies will help them to deal with the
gap between their language skills and the task difficulties. In order to systematically
address executive-function processes, our guidelines were (a)developing childrens
awareness of their competences and their capability of learning at their own pace;
(b)connecting their effort and skills with their accomplishments; (c)developing
self-regulatory strategies that allow children to gain control over their reading and
writing processes; (d)developing metalinguistic skills (Gombert, 1992)that allow
children to acquire knowledge representations and strategies at various linguistic
levels (phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic, orthographic, pragmatic).
There are reciprocal relationships between childrens academic achievement,
motivation and cognitive process (Brunstein, Schultheiss, & Grassmann, 1998;
Metzer etal., 2004). Self-confidence in their potential as learners leads children to
(a)persist and put effort into reading and writing, and (b)developing interest in
exploring new challenges and in using effective strategies to compensate for their
difficulties. Reciprocally, their success on academic tasks improves their self-esteem
in a cyclical relationship (Metzer et al. 2004). Thus, the nature of the task is an
important factor in promoting childrens knowledge and in motivating them to
gain control over their leaning process. In this sense, the tasks presented to children
must be very carefully planned.
The underpinning rationale for our program was to find a balance between the
challenges presented by the task and childrens ability to carry out the task. The
challenges presented by the task can be seen as an opportunity to develop new skills
and knowledge with the childrens current reading and writing abilities as a starting
point. Considering that reading and spelling development are influenced by differences among orthographic systems (Caravolas, 2004), the tasks are planned in
accordance with the relative difficulty in the phonological and grammatical features
of Brazilian Portuguese.
Taking into account the reading and writing bidirectional relationship
(Berninger, Lee, Abbott & Breznitz, 2011; Ehri,1997), another important guideline to the task planning is the integration of reading and writing experiences. The
regularity of the graphophonemic correspondence in Brazilian Portuguese reading
is used to support spelling development and text composition. Finally, as reading
and spelling with a reasonable accuracy is achieved more than with fluency in transparent orthographies (Serrano & Defior, 2008; Wimmer, 1993; 1996), our intervention program focuses in promoting the development of fluency as well as of
accuracy in reading and in writing.
The intervention was carried out weekly on an individual basis to address each
childs specific needs and interests. Thus, it was essential that the intervention be
based on both the pattern of specific linguistic and cognitive difficulties underpinning the childs reading and writing problems in Brazilian Portuguese as well as the
pattern of the childs strengths, which could be used as resources for remediating
the difficulties in learning Brazilian Portuguese. Childrens cognitive abilities in
terms of nonverbal and verbal abilities, phonological awareness, working memory,
vocabulary, and executive functions (planning and execution and flexibility) were
also assessed. Aseries of observations aiming at determining childrens interest and
motivation as well as their strength and weakness in different aspects of literacy
were also conducted. In addition we conducted interviews with childrens parents

and an analysis of school reports and work sheets.
In order to help identify the childrens specific needs and to define aims for the
intervention, descriptive profiles focusing on the childrens writing ability were created. The writing samples were obtained by asking the children to write down five
words they regarded as easy and five other words they considered difficult for writing, justifying their choices afterwards. They were then invited to read the words
they wrote. The children were also asked to write an original story and to read their
text shortly afterwards. In addition, the children are given a single word reading and
spelling test standardized for Brazilian children of school age (Stein, 1994).
The qualitative analysis of the writing samples of the children who attended
the social clinic over the past years enabled us to construct three distinctive profiles complemented by a description of childrens reading abilities. These profiles
allowed a comprehensive assessment of newcomers written expression as well as
accounting for the development of writing of the children who had already been
attending the intervention program.
Profile I:Prealphabetic Writing
Despite the knowledge that the children had about the way writing was spatially
and visually organized, they showed difficulties in understanding the foundation of writing in an alphabetic orthography:that words could be read or written
from the knowledge of the correspondences between letters and sound units (see
Figure17.1). The children could write only the few regular words they learned by
heart. In their spontaneous writing, the children wrote a series of letters that did
not represent a recognizable word in Portuguese. They used the repetition of letters whose design or name was familiar to them, particularly the letters of their
names. However, they were not able to establish any conventional correspondence
between letters and sounds. The childrens reading ability was also reduced to a few
simple words they knew by heart. The children had little skill in phonological analysis of speech, which was expressed, for example, by difficulties in enjoying rhymes,
in identifying words that had similar initial syllables or in segmenting words into
syllables.
Skills for developing syllabic phonological awareness played a major role in
learning to write in BP. Our intervention program initially aimed to develop the
childrens phonological awareness:identification of both initial and final syllables as
well as the segmentation of words into syllables. Once the children obtained a good
performance in phonological tasks, new games including written syllables (CV pattern) were introduced. Words formed with these syllables were then presented to
the children. The children were invited to discover which words could be formed
by the re-combination of the constituent syllables. Syllabic families were generated
for each of the syllables worked with, and children were encouraged to discover
Figure17.1.
Prealphabetic writing.
words that could be written combining the different syllabic families. Once all the
linguistic games and puzzles that could be derived from these key words were fully
explored, new words were chosen until the main aspects of the Brazilian Portuguese
orthography were presented. The children also had a great variety of books at their
disposal. Poems and stories had a controlled vocabulary formed mainly by regular
CV words.
Profile II:Knowledge of a Few Regular Syllabic Patterns
The children had knowledge of some systematic correspondences between letters and sounds. Their writings included mainly regular CV words. Written texts
were composed of few sentences with no punctuation. In sentences, words were
often segmented in an unconventional way. Those unconventional word segmentations take the form of hyposegmentation (words were written with no blank spaces
between them) or hypersegmentation (words were divided into two or more
parts). Their stories plots were limited to the presentation of the main characters
and settings (see Figure17.2).
The most frequent spelling errors found in the childrens writings consisted of
(a)letter omissions; (b)regularization of complex syllables through simplification
of the spelling of words with consonant clusters, diphthong or digraph to a simpler
syllabic structure (CV pattern); (c)difficulty in spelling accurately consonants differing in voicing (voiced/voiceless substitutions).
The childrens reading was not fluent. In reading aloud, they slowly stressed each
syllable of the words (syllabic reading). In spite of their problems with fluency in
reading, Brazilian children with dyslexia were able to read with precision words
with simpler syllabic-orthographic pattern (CV or V) or phrases formed by words
Figure 17.2.
Written text including regular CV words, misspellings and unconventional word segmentations.
with that pattern. With help, the children could read more complex syllabic patterns
(CCV).
With instruction, the children made more progress in reading than in writing because they had to put a larger amount of cognitive and physical effort into
writing. First of all, in BP, children have to deal with more inconsistencies in
phoneme-grapheme mapping to write than in grapheme-phoneme correspondence
to read. In fact, the correspondence grapheme-phoneme is very consistent in BP.
Moreover, in the writing process, children also have to coordinate thoughts with
the act of writing on paper, which imposes additional demands on novice learners
in text generation. For young children, their less-developed fine motor skills also
limit their ability to write fluently.
Because of the progress they made in reading, Brazilian children with dyslexia were then more willing to participate in reading than in writing activities.
Besides the fewer cognitive demands they found in reading, being able to read
(even without much fluency) testified to the childrens progress. Dyslexic childrens levels of engagement increased at this point because they were aware of their
accomplishments.
Reading was also used as a way to improve the childrens knowledge of several
syllabic-orthographic patterns in BP and of letter-sound correspondences. Reading
and writing games and activities were specially designed to include the several syllabic patterns of BP.
Profile III:Unconventional Spelling:Difficulties with Irregularities

and More Complex Orthographic Rules
The children mastered all regular mapping between phonemes and letters. They
showed some knowledge of a few complex syllabic patterns including consonantal
clusters and digraphs. However, they experienced great difficulty learning spelling
inconsistencies as well as more complex orthographic rules such as (a)conditional
or context-dependent rules in which certain phonemes are spelled in certain ways,

depending on their position in the word; (b)morphological rules in which spelling
is determined by morphology.
It is worth mentioning that the obstacles faced by dyslexic children spelling in
BP were the same ones that were experienced by typically developing children.
Also the spelling errors made by children with dyslexia were very similar to those
committed by typically developing children. However, children with dyslexia took
more time to overcome the obstacles posed by BP orthography. Also, their spelling errors remained pervasive, which impaired the fluency of their writing and the
coherence of their texts.
Frequently, dyslexic writings resembled a phonetic transcription of speech, as
children indiscriminately produced a regular one-letter-to-one-phoneme type of
spelling (see Figure 17.3). Other types of spelling errors produced by Brazilian
children with dyslexia were (a)representation of a phoneme by a corresponding
plausible similar sounding letter in BP; (b)omission of letters; and (c)hypercorrectionan unconventional usage of an orthographic rule as a result of a conscious
and intense effort the children made to avoid a spelling error.
Figure17.3.
Unconventional spelling.
In their written texts, dyslexics rarely used the conventions of writing related
to punctuation or to the arrangements of sentences into paragraphs. In dyslexic
childrens written texts, unconventional word segmentations occurrences (hyposegmentation and hypersegmentation) decreased but did not disappear. The childrens story plots went far beyond the presentation of main characters and settings.
The plots included events that were experienced by the characters. However, the
children ended their stories abruptly. The children considered the addition of the
expression the end enough to finish the story. Children with dyslexia tried to
compensate for their difficulties with spelling by choosing to write words with
simpler syllabic patterns. These word choices impaired the quality of dyslexic childrens texts.
At this stage, the reading of children with dyslexia were more accurate and fluent,
although it still lacked appropriate intonation and expression. In their oral reading,
children generally did not respect punctuation marks. The improvement of fluency
was at this point a major aim in developing dyslexic childrens reading abilities. As
reading and writing share linguistic and cognitive processes, reading texts were also
used in our intervention program as models for compositions as well as a tool for
spelling (Berninger etal., 2002; Graham, 2000).
FINAL REMARKS
An intervention program for literacy difficulties has a double meaning for children
with dyslexia/specific learning difficulty. On the one hand, attending a remedial
program is regarded by children as an opportunity to receive specific additional
support to improve their reading and writing skills. On the other hand, in order to
develop their literacy abilities, children have to struggle with their cognitive and linguistic difficulties. This process brings with it anxiety and arouses childrens feelings
of inadequacy and self-blame. Thus, it is necessary to assist children with dyslexia to
overcome their reading and writing difficulties by providing them with meaningful
learning contexts taking into account their knowledge and abilities as well as their
feelings and self-concept.
Dyslexic children become more and more confident in their writing skills as
their spelling errors decrease. Improving spelling and focusing on both accuracy
and fluency also provide dyslexic children with an essential skill for text generation
(Berninger etal., 2008; Gregg & Mather, 2002).
The development of childrens metacognitive abilities allows them to gain control over their reading and writing processes, self-regulating their learning (Graham
& Harris, 2000). Finally, the awareness of dyslexic childrens accomplishments is
an important factor to change their negative academic self-concept as well as their
low self-esteem.
AUTHOR NOTES
Support for this study was provided by FAPERJ, MCT/CNPq. We are grateful
to Julie Dockrell and Pamela Mills for the careful reading and comments on this
chapter.
REFERENCES
Affonso, M. J. C. O., Piza, C. M. J. T., Barbosa A. C. C., & Macedo, E. C. (2010).
Desenvolvimento:Tipos de erros ortogrficos em prova de nomeao de figuras por escrita
[Assessment of writing in developmental dyslexia:Types of orthographic errors in the written version of a picture naming test] Rev. CEFAC. Disponvel em http://www.scielo.br/
scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-18462010005000117&lng=pt&nrm=iso>.
Alegria, J., & Mousty, P. (1996). The development of spelling procedures in French speaking,
normal and reading-disabled children: Effects of frequency and lexicality. Journal of
Alves, L., Pinheiro, A.M. V., Reis, C., & Capellini, S. (2009). Medidas objetivas de fluncia de
leitura e o processo de compreenso [Measures of fluency in reading and comprehension process] In T. Barbosa, C. C.Rodrigues, C. B.Mello, S. Capellini, R. Mousinho,
& L. M.Alves (Eds.), Temas em dislexia (pp. 89102) [Notes on dyslexia]. So Paulo,
Brazil:Artes Mdicas.
Azevedo, M.M. (2005). Portuguese:Alinguistic introduction. Cambridge, England:Cambridge
University Press.
Barbosa, P. A. (2000). Tempo-silbico em Portugus do Brasil: Uma crtica a Roy Major
[Syllable-timing in Brazilian Portuguese]. D.E.L.T.A., 16, 369402.
Berninger, V.W., & Graham, S. (1998). Language by hand:Asynthesis of a decade of research
on handwriting. Handwriting Review, 12, 1125.
Berninger, V.W., Lee, Y.-L., Abbott, R.D., & Breznitz, Z. (2011). Teaching children with dyslexia
to spell in a reading-writerss workshop. Annals of Dyslexia, published online:August
16, 2011.
problems in development dyslexia: under-recognized and under-treated. Journal of
Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R. D., Begay, K., Coleman, K. B., Curtain,
G.,
.
.
.
Graham, S. (2002). Teaching spelling and composition alone and
together: implications for the simple view of writing. Journal of Educational
Bisol, L. (2000). O troqueu silbico no sistema fonolgico [The syllabic trochee in the phonological system]. D.E.L.T.A., 16, 403413.
Borgwaldt, S. R., Hellwig, F. M., & De Groot, A. M. B. (2005). Onset entropy matters
Letter-to-phoneme mappings in seven languages. Reading and Writing, 18, 211229.
Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. (1983). Learning, remembering and understanding. In P. H.Mussen (Series Ed.) & E. M.Hetherington (Vol. Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology:Vol 4.Socialization, personality, and social development (4th
ed., pp. 77166). NewYork, NY:Wiley.
Bruning, R., & Horn, C. (2000). Developing motivation to write. Educational Psychologist,
35(1), 2537.
Brunstein, J. C., Schultheiss, O. C., & Grassmann, R (1998). Personal goals and emotional
well-being:the moderating role of motive dispositions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75(2), 494508.
Capellini, S.A., Ferreira, T.L., Salgado, C.A., & Ciasca, S.M. (2007). Desempenho de escolares bons leitores, com dislexia e com transtorno do dficit de ateno e hiperatividade
em nomeao automtica rpida [Performance of good readers, students with dyslexia
and attention dficit hyperactivity disorder in rapid automatized naming]. Revista da
Sociedade Brasileira Fonoaudiologia, 12, 114119.
Capellini, S., Germano, G., & Cardoso, A. C. (2008). Relao entre habilidades auditivas e
fonolgicas em crianas com dislexia do desenvolvimento. [Relationship between phonological abilities and auditory processing in children with developmental dyslexia]
Revista Semestral da Associao Brasileira de Psicologia Escolar e Educacional (ABRAPEE),
12, 235253.
Capellini, S.A., Padula, N.A. M.R., Santos, L.C. A., Lourenceti, M.D., Carrenho, E.H., &
Ribeiro, L.A. (2007). Desempenho em conscincia fonolgica, memria operacional,
leitura e escrita na dislexia familial. [Phonological awareness, working memory, reading and writing performances in familial dyslexia]. Pr-Fono Revista de Atualizao
Cientfica, 19, 37480.
Caravolas, M. (2004). Spelling development in alphabetic writing systems:a crosslinguistic
perspective. European Psychologist, 9, 314.
Caravolas, M., & Volin, J. (2001). Phonological spelling errors among dyslexic children learning a transparent orthography:the case of Czech. Dyslexia, 7, 229245.
Cardoso-Martins, C. (2006). Beginning reading acquisition in Brazilian Portuguese. In R.
M.Joshi & P. G.Aaron. Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 171187). Mahwah,
NJ/London, England:Erlbaum.
Cardoso-Martins, C., Corra, M.F., & Magalhes, L.F. S. (2010). Dificuldade especfica de
aprendizagem da leitura e da escrita. [Specific difficulty in reading and writing learning)
(pp. 133149). In L. F.Malloy-Diniz, D. Fuentes, P. Mattos, & N. Abreu (Eds.). Avaliao
neuropsicolgica [Neuropsychological assessment]. Porto Alegre, Brazil:Artmed.
Cardoso-Martins, C., & Triginelli, M. M. (2010). Specific reading disability in Brazilian
Portuguese: Evidence for a multiple-cognitive deficit model. Revista Brasileira de
Psiquiatria, 32, 458459.
Ciasca, S.M. (2003). Distrbios de aprendizagem:Proposta de avaliao interdisciplinar [Learning
disorders:an interdisciplinar approach]. So Paulo, Brazil:Casa do Psiclogo.
Correa, J., & Dockrell, J. (2007). Unconventional word segmentation in Brazilian childrens
early text production. Reading & Writing, 20, 815831
Correa, J., & MacLean, M. (1999). Aprendendo a ler e a escrever: a narrativa das crianas
sobre a alfabetizao [Learning to read and write:childrens oral stories about literacy].
Psicologia Reflexo e Crtica, 12, 273286.
Correa, J., Maclean, M., Meireles, E.S., Lopes, T.C., & Glockling, D. (2007). Using spelling
skills in Brazilian Portuguese and English. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics, 6, 6182
Ehri, L.C. (1997). Learning to read and learning to spell are one and the same, almost. In C.
A.Perfetti, L. Rieben, & M. Fayol (Eds), Learning to spell:Research, theory and practice
across languages (pp. 237269). Hillsdale, NJ, London, England:Erlbaum.
Faraco, C. (1992). Escrita e alfabetizao [Writing and Literacy]. So Paulo, Brazil:Contexto.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of
cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906911.
Gombert, J. (1992). Metalinguistic development. London, England:Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
Graham, S. (2000). Should the natural learning approach replace spelling instruction? Journal
of Educational Psychology, 92, 235247.
Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing
and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 312.
Gregg, N., & Mather, N. (2002). School is fun at recess:informal analyses of written language
for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 722.
Lemle, M. (1987). Guia terico do alfabetizador [Theoretical guide for literacy teacher]. So Paulo,
Brazil:tica.
Matzenauer, C.L. B. (2004). Bases para o entendimento da aquisio fonolgica [Parameters
to the understanding the phonological acquisition]. In R. R.Lamprecht etal. (Eds.),
Aquisio fonolgica do portugus [Portuguese phonological acquisition] (pp. 3358).
Porto Alegre, Brazil:Artmed.
Meltzer, L., & Krishnan, K. (2007). Executive function difficulties and learning disabilities:understandings and misunderstandings. In L. Meltzer (Ed.), Executive function in
education:From theory to practice (pp. 77105). NewYork, NY:Guilford Press.
Metzer, L., Reddy, R., Sales Pollica, L., Roditi, B., Sayer, J., & Theokas, C. (2004). Positive and
negative self-perceptions:Is there a cyclical relationship between teachers and students
perceptions of effort, strategy use, and academic performance? Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 19, 3344.
Morais, A.G. (2005). O diagnstico como instrumento para o planejamento do ensino de ortografia [Diagnostic as a tool to teach spelling]. In A. Silva, A. G.Morais & K. L.R. Melo
(Eds.), Ortografia na sala de aula [Spelling in the classroom] (pp. 4560). Belo Horizonte,
Brazil:Autntica.
Mousinho, R., & Correa, J. (2009). Conhecimento ortogrfico na dislexia fonolgica. [Spelling
knowledge in phonological dyslexia]. In T. Barbosa, C. C. Rodrigues, C. B. Mello, S.
Capellini, R. Mousinho, & L. M.Alves. (Eds.), Temas em dislexia [Notes on dyslexia] (pp.
3346). So Paulo, Brazil:Artes Mdicas.
Mousinho, R., Correa, J., Mesquita, F. (2010). Perfil da escrita da criana com dislexia [Dyslexic
childrens writing]. In C. Capovilla (Ed.), Transtornos de aprendizagem [Learning disorders] (pp. 190197). So Paulo, Brazil:Memnon.
Ramus, F., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J. (1999). Correlates of linguistic rhythm in speech. Cognition,
73, 265292.
Roach, P. (1982). On the distinction between stress-timed and syllable-timed languages. In
D. Crystal (Ed.), Linguistic controversies (pp. 7379). London, England:Edward Arnold.
Serrano, F., & Defior, S. (2008). Dyslexia speed problems in a transparent orthography. Annals
of Dyslexia, 58(1), 8195.
Silva, T.C. (1999). Fontica e fonologia do Portugus [Phonetics and phonology of Portuguese] So
Paulo, Brazil:Contexto.
Stein, L.M. (1994). TDETeste de desempenho escolar:Manual para aplicao e interpretao.
So Paulo:Casa do Psiclogo.
Sucena, A, Castro, S.L., & Seymour, P. (2009). Developmental dyslexia in na orthography of
intermediate depth:the case of European Portuguese. Reading and Writing, 22, 791810.
Teyssier, P. (2007). Histria da Lngua Portuguesa [History of the Portuguese Language] (3rd
ed.) (C. Cunha, Trans.). So Paulo, Brazil:Martins Fontes.
Thomson, M. (1990). Evaluating teaching programmes for children with specific learning difficulties. In P. D.Pumfrey and C. D.Elliott (Eds), Childrens difficulties in reading, spelling
and writing (pp. 155183). London, England:Falmer Press.
Virio, M.E., & Guimares-Filho, Z.O. (2007). Anlise quantitativa da freqncia dos fonemas e estruturas silbicas portuguesas. [Statistical properties of phonemes and syllabic
structures in Portuguese]. Estudos Lingusticos, XXXVI, 2836.
Wimmer, H. (1993). Characteristics of developmental dyslexia in a regular writing system.
Wimmer, H. (1996). The early manifestation of developmental dyslexia: Evidence from

German children. Reading and Writing, 8, 171188.
Wimmer, H., & Landerl, K. (1997). German differs from learning to spell English. C.A. Perfetti,
L. Rieben & M. Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell:research, theory and practice across languages (pp. 237269). Hillsdale, NJ, London, England:Erlbaum.
Zorzi, J.L., & Ciasca, S.M. (2009). Anlise de erros ortogrficos em diferentes problemas de
aprendizagem [Analyzing typical orthographic mistakes related to different learning
problems]. Rev. CEFAC. 11(3) 408416.
CHAPTER18
Expressive Writing in Swedish

15-Year-Olds with Reading and
WritingDifficulties
SA WENGELIN, ROGER JOH ANSSON,
AND VICTORI A JOH ANSSON
n our present information age, full participation in democratic society requires

good written-language skills. Writing is, therefore, a key skill in the school curricula of most, if not all, Western countries. Moreover, in Sweden, just as in many
other countries, schooling beyond the first few years incorporates aspects of writing
in almost every activity. In 2010, about 8% of 15-year-olds with Swedish as their
first language did not reach the targets for writing in the national assessment tests
for Swedish. When the results of children with Swedish as a second language are
included, the corresponding number was above 20%.
Writing difficulties can be identified in a wide range of children and adults. In
this chapter we have limited our study to writers with both reading and spelling
problems. Those writers may be dyslexic, but since there are several ways of diagnosing dyslexia and diagnostic groups reflect a heterogeneous group of difficulties
(Dockrell, 2009), we have chosen to use the term reading and writing difficulties
rather than dyslexia.
As pointed out by Berninger, Nielsen, and Abbott (2008) writing difficulties are both under-recognized and undertreated. In addition they are also
under-researched. In the Swedish context, research on writing difficulties in adolescents and adults is close to nonexistent. Wengelin (2002; 2007)investigated the
text-production processes of Swedish adults with reading and writing difficulties
and found that they were dysfluent linear writers who were very preoccupied with
spelling. They made many intraword pauses and many spelling-related editings.
One notable finding was that they made about the same number of revisions as
their peers without reading and writing difficulties, but whereas the members of
that group edited to improve the content of their texts, the writers with reading and
writing difficulties used almost all their editings to change spellingsboth from
incorrect to correct and the other way round.
Dockrell (2009) suggests that addressing writing problems requires more than
simply establishing childrens level of performance in comparison with peers.
Careful analysis of the writing process and its product as well as an assessment of
transcription skills are required to provide a basis for choosing an appropriate intervention. In this chapter, we explore the writing skills and writing difficulties of a
group of Swedish 15-year-olds with reading and writing difficulties. We assess their
reading and writing skills by means of standardized decoding and spelling tests,
relating the standardized scores of the participants to various characteristics of both
their writing processes and their final edited texts. Our research questionsare:
What are the writing characteristics of Swedish 15-year-olds with reading and
writing difficulties?
What are the relations between word-level difficulties as measured by standardized tests, objective quantitative text measures, subjective text-quality judgements, and writing-process characteristics for this group?
Because of our limited knowledge of the writing of this group, our study is largely
exploratory and descriptive. According to Dockrell (2009) we need to start with a
theoretical model of the development of writing skills in order to be able to offer
appropriate interventions and to understand the nature of the difficulties that children experience. We will discuss our findings in terms of the simple view of writing (Berninger etal., 2002), which, in the opinion of Dockrell (2009), provides a
framework allowing us to investigate the various challenges of writing encountered
by children with different types of writing difficulties. In the simple view of writing,
developing writing can be represented as a triangle in a working memory environment. In this triangle, transcription skills (handwriting, keyboarding, and spelling)
and executive functions (conscious attention, planning, reviewing, revising, and
self-regulation strategies) are the vertices at the base that enable text generation
which is the goal at the apex of the triangleto proceed efficiently.
METHOD
Participants
The data used in this chapter represent a subset of a larger dataset collected in the
framework of a larger project called The Dynamics of Perception and Production
during Text Writing1 in which 79 writers participated. That project included
both university students and 15-year-olds with and without reading and writing
Writing in Swedish 15-Year-Olds with Reading & Writing Difficulties [245]
difficulties, all of whom wrote both expository texts and picture descriptions and
completed a reading task, in which they read a text on the same topic as that of the
expository-writing task, but produced by someone else. They were all used to typing and used computers daily. For a more detailed description of the dataset, see
Johansson, Johansson, and Wengelin (2009). The subset used here consists of the
expository texts produced by twenty-six 15-year-olds13 of whom had reading
and writing difficulties and 13 of whom (a randomly selected subset) did not have
such difficultiesand corresponding data from the reading tasks. The children
were recruited from schools in southern Sweden. All participants were chosen after
a careful screening process consisting of the DJUR word-decoding test (Herrstrm,
1998)and a spelling test ( Johansson, 1992), both of which are standardized for
Swedish.
The inclusion criterion for the group with reading and writing difficulties was
a screening-test score equal to or below stanine 3 for both decoding and spelling. Stanine (STAndard NINE-grade scale) is a method of scaling test scores on a
nine-point standard scale. To obtain stanine scores, a normal distribution is divided
into nine intervals with the mean located at the center of the fifth interval.
The mean stanine scores of the participants with reading and writing difficulties
were 2.54 (SD = 0.66) for the word-decoding test and 2.23 (SD = 0.75) for the
spelling test. Because dyslexia can be diagnosed in many different ways in Sweden,
we did not require a dyslexia diagnosis. However, none of the children had any
other known disability that could have caused the reading and writing difficulties,
such as deafness, blindness, language disorder, speech impairment, mental retardation, autism-spectrum disorder or other developmental disorders. All participants
who were identified as having reading and writing difficulties were later contacted
by a specially trained speech therapist who made sure that they received further
professional help for their difficulties (if no such help was being provided already).
The inclusion criterion for the group without reading and writing difficulties was
a score of at least stanine 5 on both screening tests and no history of language
disorders. Their mean stanine scores for the tests were 6.38 (SD = 1.04) for word
decoding and 6.62 (SD = 2.23) for spelling. All participants in both groups were in
mainstream classes at school. Some of those with reading and writing difficulties
had already received individual interventions from the special-education teacher at
their school, but others had not.
Materials and Procedure
The text-production task was performed on a PC computer with the keystrokelogging software ScriptLog (Strmqvist & Karlsson, 2002). A keystroke-logging
program records all mouse and keyboard events, that is all instances of a key being
pressed or the cursor being moved, the position (in the text) of those events and
their temporal distributionsimilarly to how a tape recorder or digital recording
program records spoken language. This makes it possible to play back the writing
session to the writer or the analyst. The program also outputs log files which describe
what happened during a writing session. In addition, eye-tracking (ET) equipment
in the form of an SMI iView X (HED + HT 50 Hz) was used and synchronized with
the ScriptLog recording. An eye-tracker records the eye movements of the writer, that
is, where he or she is looking (and presumably what he or she is attending to) while
writing. This makes it possible to identify, for instance, occasions when the writer is
reading his or her text and exactly what he or she is reading at a specific time. Eyetracking was used both for the reading task and the text production task.
The elicitation instrument used for the expository text was a short film (Berman
& Verhoeven, 2002)showing various problems from a school day, such as cheating,
stealing, and bullying. The participants were informed that they were to write two
texts and read one text on the computer. They were also informed that we would
be recording their eye movements while they were performing the tasks. For the
text-production task of relevance to this chapter, they watched the film and were
then asked to write an essay in which they discussed possible reasons for and solutions to the problems featured in the film. They were told to write for 30 minutes
and were informed when 5 minutes remained. However, no participant who needed
more time to finish his or her text was ever prevented from doing so.
We measured both process and product variables for each text. The
text-production processes were analyzed for productivity in terms of total time on
task (from the start of the task to the final keystroke, that is, a key pressed to produce a letter), words in the final text per minute, typing fluency, pauses longer than
two seconds between language bursts (Kaufer, Hayes & Flower, 1986), number of
revisions, total time spent reading, and fixation durations. Words per minute and
typing fluency may at first sight appear to be the same measure. However, two writers could actually produce the same number of final-text words per minute with
very different typing speeds. One may type slowly but make very few revisions,
whereas the other may make many revisions but still produce the same number of
words in the same time by typing faster, that is by being a more fluent typist. Thus,
words in the final text could be described as a kind of productivity measure. Typing
fluency, on the other hand, measures how fast the writer presses the keys on the
keyboard during text production. Because typing fluency is influenced by linguistic variables such as letter and word frequency, morphological structure and syllable structure, it is not a purely motoric measure. The final texts were analysed for
number of spelling mistakes, lexical diversity, syntactic complexity (words per t-unit)
and text quality. Lexical diversity measures the vocabulary variation of a text. For
a text to be highly lexically diverse, the speaker or writer has to use many different
words, with little repetition of words already used. There are a number of different measures of lexical diversity (see McKee, Malvern & Richards, 2000). We used
VocD, which is not sensitive to text length. For text quality, the standards used in the
Swedish national assessment tests of Swedish were used. The measures included
in this assessment were a holistic measure of overall text quality, reader awareness,
genre awareness, coherence, linguistic quality and orthography. Of the last two
components, linguistic quality includes different aspects of vocabulary and syntax, whereas orthography includes spelling and punctuation.
RESULTS
Because the groups were very small (for each group n = 13), the individual variation
was large (see the standard deviations in Tables 15) and the quality judgements
consisted of ordinal data, nonparametric statistics were used. For the group comparisons we used the Mann-Whitney U test and for the correlations Spearmans
Rank Correlation test. The significance level used was .05.
First we report results for the transcription skills (the first vertex of the simple
view of writing triangle). As mentioned earlier, the participants were chosen based
on their scores on standardized word-level tests, so we already knew that the writers with reading and writing difficulties were poor spellers and decoders compared
with those without such difficulties. Table18.1 shows descriptive statistics in the
form of raw scores on the screening tests. The highest possible score on the decoding test was 115. The mean score of1.77 for the group with reading and writing
difficulties is explained by the fact that it was possible to score negative points. The
highest possible score on the spelling test was 50 and the lowest possible score was
0.There were no ceiling or floor effects.
In Table18.2 we turn to the process variables, which, to a certain extent, reflect
the second vertex of triangle of the simple view of writing:executive functions. There
was no difference between the groups for either total time spent on the writing task,
proportion of deleted characters or proportion of total time spent reading. The writers with reading and writing difficulties did, however, have a significantly larger proportion of pause time than their peers without such difficulties. This finding raises the
question of whether they devoted more time to planning or used their pause time for
other purposes, for instance to think about spelling. They also had longer transition
times between keystrokes, that is, they were less fluent typists, and they produced
fewer words per minute than the writers without reading and writing difficulties.
Given the great differences between the groups in word-decoding skills, the fact
that we did not find any difference between them in how large a proportion of the
total time they spent reading their texts made us curious about their reading during
Table18.1 RAW SCORES ON THE SCREENING TESTS
Raw test
scores
Decoding
Spelling
With R & W difficulties
Without R & W difficulties
SD
SD
13
13
1.77
22.62
31.60
5.33
13
13
69.08
43.23
13.03
2.86
<.001
<.001
Table18.2 WRITING-PROCESS MEASURES

Process
characteristics
SD
SD
Words/min
Time on task (min)
13
13
11.06
23:42
8.12
7:45
13
13
20.3
26:11
6.87
6:37
.001
>.05
Mean transition (s)
13
.35
.17
13
.23
0.07
.012
% pause time
13
49.16
18.29
13
33.92
8.36
.006
% deletions
% reading time
13
13
16.45
4.77
12.06
4.09
13
13
9.38
7.08
5.47
4.92
>.05
>.05
Table18.3 FIXATION DURATIONS DURING THE READING TASK

ANDTHEWRITING TASK
Mean fixation
duration (ms)
Reading task
Writing task
SD
SD
13
13
278.00
275.14
44.41
31.96
13
13
238.60
240.43
27.17
28.08
.020
.020
writing behaviour. Our failure to find a significant difference between the groups
could be an artefact of the small groups and the large individual variation; in other
words, we may obtain different results when we analyse a larger data set. However,
another possibility could be that there was in fact a difference between the groups,
but not so much in how much time they spent on reading as in how they read.
Therefore, we investigated the duration of their fixations not only while they were
reading during the writing task, but also during the reading task. Table18.3 shows
mean fixation durations for the two groups. Neither group showed any differences
between the two tasks, but the participants with reading and writing difficulties
made significantly longer fixations than the participants without such difficulties.
In other words, as could be expected, they read considerably more slowly than the
participants without difficulties during both tasks.
Having thus covered the base of the triangle, we now turn to its apex:text characteristics. Table18.4 shows the objective, quantitative measures. As expected, the
writers with reading and writing difficulties produced significantly shorter texts,
with lower lexical diversity and more misspelled words, than the writers without
such difficulties. With regard to syntactic complexity, however, we did not find any
difference between the groups.
The more subjective text-quality measures are shown in Table18.5. On all these
measures, the writers with reading and writing difficulties obtained significantly
Table18.4 TEXT CHARACTERISTICS:OBJECTIVE MEASURES

Text
characteristics
SD
Number of words
Lex. diversity
13
13
225.46
61.03
105.19
12.61
13
13
Synt. complex.
% misspellings
13
13
12.45
8.1
2.29
5.2
13
13
SD
498.31
89.25
88.23
17.46
<.001
<.001
12.96
1.9
2.96
1.3
>.05
<.001
Table18.5 TEXT-QUALITY MEASURES

Text quality
SD
SD
Holistic qual.
Reader aware.
13
13
1.90
2.13
0.47
0.59
13
13
3.42
3.62
0.75
0.74
<.001
<.001
Genre aware.
13
2.13
0.51
13
3.51
0.72
<.001
Coherence
13
1.91
0.60
13
3.34
0.82
<.001
Linguistic qual.
Orthography
13
13
1.75
1.60
0.35
0.37
13
13
3.21
2.99
0.69
0.77
<.001
<.001
lower scores than those without such difficulties. It is worth noting that the raters
generally appear to have rated the writers reader awareness and genre awareness
higher than the linguistic and orthographic aspects of the texts. However, there
were strong correlations between the various quality measures, which is why in this
chapter we will only use the holistic measure from now on.
So far, we have seen few surprises. The writers with reading and writing difficulties are, predictably, less fluent writers, taking more pauses, who produce shorter
texts with more spelling mistakes, lower lexical diversity, and lower text quality than
the writers without such difficulties. It is, therefore, interesting to study how these
characteristics relate to each other:Do spelling skills as measured by a standardized test correlate more strongly with the characteristics of the text-production process or the characteristics of the final text, and do the process data correlate with
the final-text characteristics? Tables18.6 and 18.7 show all statistically significant
inter-measure correlations for the groups with and without reading and writing
difficulties, respectively. To make these correlation tables easier to read, we have
divided them into squares in different shades of grey.
In both Table18.6 and Table18.7 the uppermost rectangle shows all correlations with (holistic) text quality and the right-most rectangle shows all correlations with spelling-test scores. Only spelling measures correlated with text
Table18.6 SIGNIFICANT CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SPELLING-TEST SCORES,

PROCESS VARIABLES AND TEXT CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE WRITERS WITH
READING AND WRITING DIFFICULTIES
1
1Text quality
2Words
10
11
12
13
.56
.88** .60* .90**
3Lex div
.70**
4Synt compl
5Misspellings
.64*
6Tot time
7Words/min
.67*
1
8Trans times
.68* .84**
1
9 % pause time
10 % deletions
11 % read time
12 Fix durations
13 Spelling test
1
1
Note:*p < .05, **p < .01.
Table 18.7 SIGNIFICANT CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SPELLING-TEST SCORES,

PROCESS VARIABLES AND TEXT CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE WRITERS WITHOUT READING AND WRITING DIFFICULTIES
1
1Text quality
2Words
3Lex div
4Synt compl
5Misspellings
6Tot time
7Words/min
8Trans times
9 % pause time
10 % deletions
11 % read
12 Fix durations
13 Spelling test
10
11
12
13
.57
1
.69**
1
.60*
.62*
.59*
.60*
.61*
.63* .74**
1
1
.80*
.74**
.74**
.60* .63*
1
1
.58
1
.62* .64*
1
.70*
1
1
Note:*p < .05, **p < .01.
quality (see Tables 18.6 and 18.7), interestingly, however, with different ones.
For the group with reading and writing difficulties, it is the level of spelling ability
whereas for the groups without difficulties it is the number of spelling mistakes
in the text. For this group, however, spelling-test score correlated with lexical
diversity.
Overall, correlations are more numerous for the group without difficulties than
for their peers with reading and writing difficulties. The light grey squares near the
top-left corner of each table show correlations between various text measures of a
quantitative and objective nature. For the group with reading and writing difficulties, we found no such correlations. For the group without such difficulties, it seems
that those who wrote the longest texts also produced more complex clauses. For
this group syntactic complexity also correlated negatively with lexical diversity.
The larger light grey square near the bottom-right corner of the tables shows
correlations between various process characteristics. For the writers with reading
and writing difficulties, total time correlated negatively with words per minute; that
is the more productive they were, the less time they spent on the task. Not surprisingly, words per minute also correlated negatively with transition times between
keystrokes and with the proportion of pause time for this group. Put differently, the
more fluent they were and the fewer pauses they made, the more words they had in
their final texts. For the writers without reading and writing difficulties, total time
correlated negatively with words per minute and positively with the proportion of
pause time, the proportion of deleted characters and the proportion of time spent
reading. In other words the more they paused, deleted, and read, the longer they
spent on the task and the fewer words per minutes they produced. In addition the
proportions of both pause time and deletions correlated with the proportion of
reading time.
Turning finally to the dark grey square near the top-right corner, we find correlations between process and product variables. Not surprisingly, the number of
words correlated with both words per minute and proportion of pause time for
both groups. For the group with reading and writing difficulties, it also correlated
negatively with keystroke transition time, that is, the faster or more fluent a typist a
writer was, the more words he or she produced. Mean transition time between keystrokes correlated (negatively) with the number of words only for the writers with
reading and writing difficulties. This means that writing fluency was associated with
the length of the text produced only for this group. Further (negative) correlations
for the group with reading and writing difficulties were found between the proportion of pause time and lexical diversity and between the proportion of misspelled
words and the proportion of time spent reading. For the group without difficulties, the fluency measure transition times correlated positively with lexical diversity,
whereas it correlated negatively with syntactic complexity. In other words, fluency
appears to be more associated with syntactic complexity than lexical diversity for
this group, but that will not be further pursued in this chapter (remember that the
faster the typist is the shorter the transitions times are).
DISCUSSION
We now return to our research questions. The first was a general question about
the characteristics of the writing of 15-year-olds with reading and writing difficulties. That they were poor spellers was apparent not only from the screening test but
also from the proportion of misspelled words in their texts. However, interestingly,
these two variables did not correlate with each other. Those with the lowest scores
on the spelling test were not necessarily the ones with the most spelling mistakes
in their texts. Moreover, for the group with reading and writing difficulties, the proportion of misspelled words did not correlate with any characteristic of the final
text, whereas the spelling-test score did. These findings raise important questions
about what spelling skills really are and how they can be measured. It seems that
spelling assessment in both school and research settings needs to take both spelling
of isolated words and spelling in textual contexts into account. In other words, to
obtain a full picture of a persons spelling ability we need to use both well-designed
standardized spelling tests and analyses of spelling mistakes made in texts. Apossible reason for the mismatch between the test scores and the proportion of misspelled words in the texts is that during their eight or nine years of schooling, the
writers concerned may have developed strategies of various kinds to avoid spelling
mistakes. Wengelin (2007) showed that adults with reading and writing difficulties make a great deal of pauses inside words and many editing operations related
to spelling; these aspects of the process were found to explain about 55% of the
variation in lexical diversity. For the group of adolescents with similar problems
discussed in this paper, we have not yet analyzed pause locations and revision types
in detail, but we do know that they have a larger proportion of pausing time and
lower lexical diversity than the group without reading and writing difficulties. This
could indicate similar behavior. Moreover, since our fluency measure relates to
transition times between keystrokes within words, lower fluency also indicates a
higher proportion of pausing within words. To a certain extent, lower fluency could
be explained by poorer typing skills in general, but we have no reason to believe that
the writers with reading and writing difficulties are much poorer typists than the
writers without such difficulties. Compare Berninger etal. (2008).
Our second question concerned the relations between word-level difficulties as
measured by standardized tests, text characteristics of an objective and quantitative nature, subjective text-quality judgments, and process variables. A couple of
findings stood out as more interesting than the others. First, for both groups, only
spelling correlated with text quality. Second, whereas it was the proportion of misspelled words in the texts for the group without difficulties, it was the spelling-test
scoreand not the proportion of misspelled words in the textsthat correlated
with text quality for the writers with reading and writing difficulties. This indicates
that there may be different explanations for these correlations between spelling
and text quality. A possible explanation is that the writers with reading and writing
difficulties are well aware of their spelling difficulties and thus very preoccupied
with avoiding spelling difficulties throughout their writing process. Even if they
have not been formally diagnosed as dyslexic, their main problems are most likely
difficulties in learning to read and spell words. See also Berninger et al. (2008).
This focus on spelling could also explain their low lexical diversity. As a result of
their attempts to avoid difficult words, they end up using a more limited vocabulary.
This interpretation is supported by the negative correlation between pausing and
lexical diversity. Further, avoiding spelling difficulties is an effortful process that
most likely uses a great deal of cognitive capacity (McCutchen, Covill, & Hoyne,
1994; McCutchen, 2006), and this could explain the correlation between spellingtest scores and text quality. If spelling strategies use most of the cognitive capacity,
there may not be enough capacity left for creating a coherent text. In this context, it
may also be worth noting the negative correlation between time spent reading and
spelling mistakes for the group with reading and writing difficulties. The more they
read, the fewer spelling mistakes they had in their texts. Of course we do not know
the causal relation herenor for any of the other correlationsbut this fits into
the picture painted above of writers who try very hard to avoid spelling mistakes.
Preliminary analyses of what and where they read confirm that they mainly read
short stretches near the insertion point, that is, at the cursor, immediately after the
text they had recently written. Another interesting finding is that the proportion of
spelling mistakes in the final text correlated with text quality for the writers without
reading and writing difficulties. Could it be that mistakes are more noticeable or
influence the judges more when there are not that many of them?
We would like to conclude this chapter by discussing our findings from the perspective of the simple view of writing (Berninger etal., 2002). As expected, spelling is a major problem of the writers with reading and writing difficulties. Spelling
problems relate to the transcription part of the model and manifest themselves both
in the spelling test, in the spelling mistakes made in the texts andit would seem
in the production process. However, a more detailed analysis of pause locations
and revision types is needed to confirm the final claim. Assuming that we are right,
this raises questions about the other vertex on the base of the triangle, namely the
executive functions.
As suggested earlier in the text, a possible explanation for the finding that the
number of spelling mistakes in the spelling test did not correlate with the proportion of spelling mistakes in the final edited texts could be that the writers with reading and writing difficulties have developed strategies to avoid difficult words. With
difficult is here meant words that the writers know or believe that they cannot spell.
If their use of such avoidance strategies entails that they use most of their pausing time and revisions for purposes related to spelling, they will have correspondingly less time and cognitive capacity for planning and other higher-level processes.
Taken together, these findings indicate that an important aim of writing instruction
for students with reading and writing difficulties must be to find ways to lower the
cognitive load produced by spelling difficulties. In a perfect world, this could be
achieved by early instruction designed to prevent the emergence of spelling difficulties in the first place.
However, even with very good instruction, in real life some children will
probably always develop spelling difficulties, at least in the sense of worrying
about spelling and developing strategies to avoid difficult words. This is not to
say that we should abandon the idea of teaching children how to spell at an early
age, but rather that we need other tools as well. An obvious such tool is a (good)
spell-checker that, with adequate use, could assist in lowering the cognitive load
of spelling. However, to be really helpful the spell-checker should probably be
integrated in writing instruction at an early stage. If it is introduced too late,
it may just facilitate the already-established effortful spelling strategieswhich
may indeed help a littlerather than become an integral part of the overall writing process. Furthermore, if children are allowed to devote, as our 15-year-old
participants may have done, all their cognitive capacity to spelling during their
nine years of schooling, they will not have had any cognitive capacity left for
the development of higher-level writing strategies, and at that point it will thus
not be enough to just lower the cognitive demands of spelling. Such children
will also need to be taught how to produce a text, because they have not had
the opportunity to learn that before. This means that they will need not only
spelling intervention but also explicit, self-regulated strategy intervention in
order to reach a level of efficient text production that results in high-quality
texts. See for example Harris, Graham, Mason, and Saddler (2002). To avoid
such a situation, it could perhaps be a good idea to separate spelling instruction
from text-production instruction at an early stage of writing development but
include instruction on how to handle possible spelling difficulties during the
text-production process.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was funded by the Swedish Research Council (grant no. 2004
2687 and grant no. 20092004) and has been supported by the Linnaeus center for Thinking in Time: Cognition, Communication and Learning (CCL)
at Lund University, which is funded by the Swedish Research Council (grant
no.349-2007-8695). Thanks to Bodil Andersson, Jana Holsanova, Sofia Sderberg,
and Sylvia Tufvesson for help with the data collection; to Johan Dahl and Henrik
Karlsson for programming help; to Johan Segerbck for proofreading the text and
improving our English; and to Sven Strmqvist for being the driving force behind
the technology development that made the data collection possible. Finally thanks
to Barbara Arf and Virginia Berninger whose constructive comments helped to
improve the chapter.
NOTE
1. Funded by the Swedish Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSFR)
Grant no F0832/2000.
REFERENCES
Berman, R.A., & Verhoeven, L. (2002). Cross-linguistic perspectives on the development
of text-production abilities: Speech and writing. Written Language & Literacy, 5,
143.
Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R. D., Begay, K., Coleman, K. B., Curtin, G., . . . Graham,
S. (2002). Teaching spelling and composition alone and together: Implications for the
simple view of writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 291304.
Berninger, V., Nielsen, K., & Abbott, R. (2008). Writing problems in developmental dyslexia:Under-recognized and under-treated. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 121.
Dockrell, J. (2009). Causes of delays and difficulties in the production of written text. In R.
Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Writing
Development (pp. 487505). London, England:SAGE.
Harris, K.R., Graham, S., Mason, L.H., & Saddler, B. (2002). Developing self-regulated writers. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 110115.
Herrstrm, M. 1998. Djur lstest. Simrishamn:Ordfabriken.
Johansson, M.-G. 1992. LS klassdiagnoser i lsning och skrivning fr hgstadiet och gymnasiet.
Stockholm:Psykologifrlaget.
Johansson, R., Johansson, V., & Wengelin, . (2009). Reading during writing:Four different
groups of writers. Lund Working Papers, 53, 4359.
Kaufer, D., Hayes, J., & Flower, L. (1986). Composing written sentences. Research in the
Teaching of English, 20, 121140.
McCutchen, D. (2000). Knowledge, processing, and working memory:Implications for a theory of writing. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 1323.
McCutchen, D. (2006). Cognitive factors in the development of childrens writing. In C.
MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 115
McCutchen, D., Covill, A., & Hoyne, S. (1994). Individual differences in writing: Implications of translating fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86,
256266.
McKee, G., Malvern, D., & Richards, B. (2000). Measuring vocabulary diversity using dedicated software. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 15, 323338.
Strmqvist, S., & Karlsson, H. (2002). ScriptLog for WindowsUsers manual. Dept. of
Linguistics, Lund University, and Centre for Reading Research, University College of
Stavanger.
Wengelin, . (2002). Text production in adults with reading and writing difficulties. Gothenburg
Monographs of Linguistics 20. Gothenburg: Department of Linguistics, University of
Gothenburg.
Wengelin, . (2007). The word-level focus in text production by adults with reading and writing difficulties. In. M Torrance, L. Van Waes, & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Writing and cognition:Research and applications (pp. 6782). Oxford, England:Elsevier.
CHAPTER19
Improving Expressive Writing in

Children with Learning Disabilities
The Effects of a Training Focused on Revision
M ARTINA PEDRON, ANNA M ARI A RE, CHI AR A MIR AND OL A ,
AND CESARE CORNOLDI
he ability to produce a written text (i.e., expressive writing) is an important

ability essential in school contexts as well as in everyday life. Being able to write
does not only imply grammatical, syntactic, and orthographic accuracy, but also
higher cognitive and metacognitive processes, such as generation of ideas and revision of what already produced in the form of a text. Given the importance of writing,
it is relatively surprising that there is a paucity of research investigating its implications for learning, in both children with typical development and children with
developmental disabilities, such as learning disabilities (LD) (Graham & Harris,
2003). Nonetheless, teachers complain about their students difficulties in writing
(Rogers & Graham, 2008), in particular for what concerns expressive writing.
Expressive writing has been explained through a few models, which take into
consideration general abilities as well as particular components that better qualify the ability to write. For example, Hayes and Flowers model (1980) considers
expressive writing as a problem-solving task, going from retrieving knowledge from
long-term memory, planning what to write and translating one own s ideas into
written format to revise the final version of the text produced.
From a different perspective, Berninger s model (1999) highlights the role of
working memory (WM) in affecting a childs written production; in particular,
insufficient mastery of rapid processes involved in transcription may be detrimental for the childs WM capacity. In a study, Berninger and colleagues (Berninger,
Abbott, Abbott, Graham, & Richards, 2002) considered the case of learning disabilities in reading and writing; 23 psychometric measures were collected from
a group of learning disabled children and their relatives. The authors found that,
for the children, only the orthographic and phonological factors had a direct influence on reading accuracy, spelling and composition factors, whereas, in the case of
affected adults, only the orthographic factor and IQ directly influenced reading and
writing outcomes.
When we started to treat children with LD for text production, at our unit
(LIRIPAC, University of Padova), we had to face the difficulty represented by the
lack of assessment and intervention procedures adapted for the Italian context.
Procedures were, therefore, developed with reference to a basic model inspired
by the previous models in the area. Expressive writing is considered by this model
(Cornoldi, Del Prete, Gallani, Sella, & Re, 2010)as the result of general components (e.g., working memory, metacognitive abilities, stored knowledge, linguistic
aspects) intertwined with specific processes required in writing. Such specific processes are grouped in three main areas:(1)cognitive processes (e.g., idea generation, sketchy planning), (2)transposition, and (3)revision. Idea generation and
text planning are assumed to be active during the whole writing process (Van den
Bergh & Rijlaarsdam, 2007)and to be affected by the actual information retrieved
from long-term-memory and contextual cues. Transposition is assumed to be more
affected than the other components by pure linguistic abilities (e.g., lexical, syntactic and paragraph-related abilities). Revision is a process that requires the ability
to check the linguistic aspects and adequacy of the written text as well as comprehension abilities (which, in turn, involve working-memory capacity) (Hayes &
Chenoweth, 2007).
LEARNING DISABILITIES AND EXPRESSIVE WRITING
Difficulties met by children with LD in text production may occur at any of

the levels identified by the model (Cornoldi etal., 2010), depending on a deluge of variables, and are associated both with reading and spelling difficulties.
However, the expressive writing disability can be considered as a category with
its own specificity as suggested by ICD-10 (OMS, 1992). For example, Gregg
and colleagues (Gregg, Coleman, Stennett, & Davis, 2002)investigated expressive writing ability in groups of students with LD, attention deficit/hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD), and control students with typical development, finding, in
general, a poorer performance in the clinical groups. However, as in the case of
other difficulties, identification of an expressive writing disability depends on
the tasks used during assessment. Further, depicting subtle differences in the
difficulties depends on whether the expressive writing disability is considered
per se, in a holistic manner, or with emphasis on its specific aspects (revealing
thus a spectrum of possible subtypes of disability). An important study was
carried out to investigate whether different subtypes of expressive writing difficulties could be depicted (Wakely, Hooper, de Kruif, & Swartz, 2006). This
study found that five main aspects could explain specific writing difficulties in
children:(1)understandability, (2)grammar, (3)semantics, (4)spelling, and
(5)reading. For example, children who were poor in semantic comprehension
made a high number of errors such as missing words, words put in the wrong
order in a sentence, and so forth, when required to write two stories cued by an
initial sentence (Wakely etal., 2006).
To confirm the importance of considering specific aspects when dealing with
writing difficulties, the model described in Cornoldi etal. (2010) shows how different specific components may affect expressive writing performance in both children with typical development and with difficulties. Being able to detect subtypes
of writing difficulties and thus to differentiate between childrens different kinds of
writing difficulties implies the possibility to focus on interventions on any of the
specific components that affect performance.
The Revision Process
It is generally acknowledged that three major aspects need to be treated and

enhanced in students with LD as well as in students with specific writing problems:planning, writing a first version of text, and revision. Revision is crucial, but
some children tend to omit this phase. Revision implies checking the written text,
or going through it while still writing, in order to verify whether it corresponds to
the content that the writer is willing to communicate and in order to eventually correct parts of it. The revision process implies two main operations:
1. Re-reading the entire text (or part of it).
2. Correcting one or more parts of the written text (or correcting the structure
of the initial planning phase).
Rereading (1)is a highly demanding process, given that it requires the writer to
critically judge his/her own text, taking the role of attentive reader while looking
for errors, unclear passages, or paragraphs with missing information. Expert writers
reread and revise the text several times before considering it complete, because they
are aware that it is difficult to put down into words their thoughts through the only
mean of a rapid transcription (Cisotto, 1998). Correcting (2)the text may involve
linguistic aspects (orthography, grammar, word choice, punctuation) and the planning of the text (consistency and organization of ideas with the original plan). This
second aspect is more difficult to accomplish because it requires higher processes
(i.e., metacognitive abilities) rather than surface changes in the written text as in
the first case (Graham & Perin, 2007). Good writers are particularly interested in
revising the global structure of the text and try to put themselves into their audience
Improving E xpressive Writing in Children with LD [ 2 5 9 ]
in order to see whether the composition is understandable and coherent (Hayes,

Flowers, Schriver, Stratman, & Carey, 1987).
Students with LD encounter greater difficulty than their peers in revising the
text. They often do not spontaneously engage in revision and, if they do, their
approach is usually ineffective, such as correcting mechanically some mistakes
(even without succeeding in it) or switching a word with another (MacArthur,
Schwartz, & Graham, 1991).
In the cases we report here, we were particularly interested in investigating
the effect of intervention on linguistic revision. Few studies have investigated the
effects of a treatment on expressive writing performance and in particular on revision. Thus, there is a need for increasing the number of high quality interventions,
that could improve childrens expressive writing performance both in classroom
and in everyday life. Hooper and colleagues (Hooper, Wakely, de Kruif, & Swartz,
2006)treated a large sample of children and found positive effects, in particular
when considering metacognitive aspects and neuropsychological abilities with
respect to the specific subtypes of writing difficulties. In Italy, Re, Caeran, and
Cornoldi (2008) also showed positive effects of a treatment on the general quality
of written texts in a group of children with ADHD.
Thus, a program for Italian children has been developed aimed at increasing
expressive writing competence in children with learning difficulties (Io scrivo Iwrite- Re, Cazzaniga, Pedron, & Cornoldi, 2009). This program has been used in
the present research, as explained in the following sections.
Structure of the Intervention Program Io scrivo
The activities of the intervention program followed in the present research are
divided in different areas, based on the model of expressive writing (Cornoldi etal.,
2010). According to this modelas briefly introduced earlierthe writing process can be divided in three major phases:(1)idea generation, (2)planning and
transcription, (3)revision. These phases are not to be considered to occur in a strict
order, but they may alternate during the process of writing. However, for those children who have specific difficulties in expressive writing, we thought it was better
to adequately follow this order and subdivide the intervention program in distinct
phases to allow the children to better understand each process and practice with it.
For all the activities in each unit, the child receives initial help, which gradually is
taken away so that, at the end of the particular task, the child masters the ability on
his/her own. The program includes scaffolding and procedural facilitation techniques
and focuses on the strategies that can be used to reduce the cognitive load (Bereiter
& Scardamalia,1995; Graham, MacArthur, Schwartz, 1995; Graham & Perin, 2007;
Bliss, Askew, & Macrae, 1996; Bodrova & Leong, 1998; Palincsar, 1998).
In the intervention study here described, we focused on the process of revision,
choosing different types of tasks according to the most frequent types of error.
The activities concerning the revision process proposed by the program Io Scrivo
involve the following aspects:

Orthographic errors.
How to avoid repetitions.
How to make nouns and adjectives agree with gender and number.
Importance of the subject in a sentence.
Coherent use of verbs and subordinate clauses.
Use of punctuation.
The present intervention Study involved 8 individual sessions, which lasted

approximately 90 minutes each. In the first session, the general scope of the program was explained to the child. In order not to influence the childs performance
at the posttraining session, the objective of the training (improvement of revision
of a written text) was not clearly enounced; instead, the children were told that
they would learn strategies useful to improve their writing abilities. The first activity
concerned orthographic revision: The child was asked to find and correct mistakes
in a few clauses.
In the second session, the child was asked to read short texts in which the errors
were underlined. Subsequently these cues were gradually taken away, such that the
child was required to identify the errors on his own. The clinician suggested to read
the text from the end to the beginning, in order to correct the orthographic errors
more easily.
In the third session, after going through what was already learned in the preceding sessions, the training focused on how to avoid repetitions, in order to make the
written text less redundant.
In the fourth session, the concepts of gender and number were introduced and
the importance of the subject in a sentence was discussed. Children had to correct
sentences in which there was no concordance of gender and/or number between
a noun and an adjective or sentences in which the subject was missing and the sentence resulted incomprehensible.
In the fifth session, verbal mood and tense were introduced. Children were
helped to write and comprehend a text, focusing on revision. First, the child was
required to introduce a verb in a sentence (the verb was put into parentheses at
the end of each sentence). Then, during the sixth session, the coherent use of verb
tenses and moods within a complex paragraph (consecutio temporum) was explained
to the child.
In the seventh session, intervention focused on punctuation. As in the previous
sessions, children were progressively helped to appropriately revise a text, but in this
case they had to consider the punctuation, an aspect that was particularly difficult
for three of the four children. In the eighth and last session, the subordinate clauses
were discussed, as well as all the possible strategies and techniques that could be
used for a good revision. For example, children were shown how to turn two coordinate sentences into a unique sentence linked by a relation of subordination.
During each session, procedural facilitations were adopted according to every
childs particular difficulties and needs.
Cases Report
Four children with diagnosis of a specific learning disability (LD) were selected for
an individual intervention program for expressive writing focused on revision (see
Table 19.1 for the childrens scores at standardized tasks). All children had severe
difficulty in writing. Marco, Tommaso, and Elena also had a severe reading decoding problem, Tommaso had a severe problem in reading comprehension and Elena
a severe difficulty in arithmetic. However, all children had an IQ within the average
values or even higher (Filippo).
Measures Collected Before and After the Intervention
Children underwent pre- and posttraining assessments on a series of expressive

writing tasks. The materials used for both assessment sessions were the following:
Expressive Writing:Descriptive and narrative writing (derived from Batteria per
la valutazione della scrittura e della competenza ortografica nella scuola dellobbligo
-BVSCO, Battery for the assessment of writing skills of children from 7 to
Table19.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FOUR CHILDREN AND SCORES

OBTAINED AT A BATTERY OF LEARNING TASKS
Age
Grade
IQ total
Marco
Tommaso
Filippo
Elena
9.1
3
8.1
3
11.1
5
10.2
4
98
93
118
102
Reading decoding (sill/sec)
1.2***
1.4***
3.5*
3.02***
Reading accuracy (errors)
18***
4*
0*
4*
5**
4***
6**
7*
< 2 SD
average
average
average
Text comprehension
Writing speed
Spelling errors
1.5 SD
> 2 SD
> 2 SD
> 2 SD
Mental calculation
average
average
average
< 2 SD
Written calculation
average
average
average
< 2 SD
Note:*** 2 SD; ** 1 SD; *=average or above average.
13years old; Tressoldi, Cornoldi, Re 2012). Written texts were scored for (see
also Re, Pedron, Cornoldi, 2007):
Total words, calculated as total number of words.
Total sentences:calculated as total number of sentences.
Percentage of orthographic errors, that is, words incorrectly written divided
by the number of text words.
Percentage of repetitions, that is, number of words repeated in the text
divided by the number of text words.
Percentage of adjectives, that is, number of qualitative adjectives divided by
the number of text words.
Percentage of subordinates, that is, number of subordinate sentences divided
by the number of sentences of the text.
Revision tasks (Novello, & Poli, unpublished):
Orthographic revision.
Morpho-syntactic revision.
Punctuation revision.
In Table19.2 the revision tasks are reported.
In particular, the task used for orthographic revision consists of a brief text that
contains 4 phonological errors, 4 nonphonological errors, 4 errors relative to stress
and double consonants (total of 12 errors). The child is required to read the text
carefully and discover and correct the errors, without time limits. Scoring is made
by two parameters:the errors correctly changed and incorrect corrections (i.e., if
the child corrects something that is not inadequate, then one point is taken out of
the final score for each of these variations).
Morpho-syntactic revision consists of a brief text that contains errors relative
to how nouns agree with gender (4), and number (4), and errors relative to verbal
Table19.2 EXAMPLES OF THE THREE REVISION TASKS
Ortographic revision
Gioved scorso era il mio compleanno e cosi
Cosi cos: this word requires the accent
sabatoho fatto una vesta...

Morpho-syntactic revision
Vesta festa:this word requires f instead of v
Un giorno trov sotterrata nel sua campo una
Sua campo has to be corrected in suo campo
pentola pieno di monete doro e tutto contento
(concordance of gender) as well as pentola pieno
se la porta a casa.
pentola piena
Porta port:the time of the verb must be the past as
in the case of the previous verb
Puntuaction revision
Giovanni e Luigi sono due amici compagni di
Correct puntuacion:
classe stanchi. di stare in citt decidono di....
Giovanni e Luigi sono due amici, compagni di classe.

Stanchi di stare in citt, decidono di andare in campagna....
tenses (4)and consecutio temporum (4). The scoring is the same as for the previous
task.
The task for punctuation revision consists of a text in which there are some
punctuation errors (9)and some missing punctuation marks (11). Scoring is made
through three parameters: number of incorrect punctuation marks, number of
omissions (i.e., ad hoc errors that the child does not individuate and number of
punctuation marks that the child does not insert when necessary).
RESULTS
The raw scores both at pretest and posttest were compared to the normative data
available for the different age ranges. The overall pattern of performance at posttest
in all the writing variables can be seen in the right part of Tables19.3 and 19.4. To
test the efficacy of the training, we identified a criterion for a clinical improvement,
based on the guidelines produced by the National Consensus Conference (2010).
An increase of at least 1 SD was defined as a significant clinical improvement.
Revision Tasks
With respect to the three tasks of revision (morpho -syntactic, orthographic and
punctuation) we found a general reduction in the number of errors, in particular
relative to orthographic and morphologic revision (Table19.3).
Inspection of raw scores in Table19.3 shows that orthographic revision improved
in all children, with a change of 1 SD in the performance of Marco and Filippo, with
a smaller number of omissions in finding errors in the text. Filippo and Elena were
more accurate at individuating and correcting errors without erroneously highlighting words that did not contain errors. Concerning morpho-syntactic revision,
Table19.3 SCORES OBTAINED BY THE FOUR CHILDREN AT THE THREE
REVISION TASKS BEFORE AND AFTER THE TRAINING
Pre- test
Post- test
Marco Tommaso Filippo Elena Marco Tommaso Filippo Elena

Orthographic revision
10***
12***
8**
8**
6**
10***
3*
5**
(errors and omissions)

Morpho-syntactic revision
10***
14***
7**
9**
6**
10***
6**
4*
(errors)
Punctuation revision
19***
24***
18***
19***
12**
19***
12**
14**
(errors and omissions)

both Marco and Elena substantially improved (fewer omissions). Punctuation revision improved in Marco, Filippo, and Elena, with a change of 1SD in their scores.
However, this improvement was more related to the identification of inadequate
punctuation than to the ability to correctly add omitted punctuations marks.
Overall, the most problematic areas were those relative to the correction of the
ad hoc errors in the text (see Table19.2) as well as omissions relative to correct
punctuation marks.
Expressive Writing Tasks
Table19.4 presents the expressive writing tasks results at the pre- and posttraining assessment. We report all the measures that were taken into consideration. If
we look at the scores obtained in the first assessment we can see that they are, in
general, very low. Three children made a high number of orthographic errors and
produced a poor text in both conditions (descriptive and narrative). All children
were particularly poor in the revision tasks.
As can be seen from Table19.4, percentages of orthographic errors decreased
substantially for all children and in both narrative and descriptive texts. In particular, in the narrative text, two children (Marco and Elena) changed their performance
from2 SD to average. In the descriptive text, all children improved, with a change
of 1 SD, and two children (Filippo and Elena) were on average in the posttest. We
can see an improvement also for the percentage of repetitions and for percentage
of subordinates, that were objects of the revision training. In particular we can see
that Marco and Elena did not have repetitions in the narrative posttest and that all
childrens performances were on average in the descriptive postest. For what concerns subordinates, children seem to have learned to use them during the training;
indeed, in the case of the descriptive text, none of the children used subordinates in
the pretest, whereas all four children used subordinates in the posttest. An improvement in the use of subordinates can also be seen in the narrative text. Finally we cannot see a great improvement in the percentage of used adjectives, which remained
very low, probably because it was not the object of the training.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The need of improving writing skills in children with LD is evident as a great number of children with LD manifest problems at this level. However, there is still a paucity of research on the effects of treatments of children with LD in writing. In this
clinical study we examined the effects of the part of the program Io scrivo (Re etal.,
2009)concerning revision. Focus on this aspect was due to two main reasons:first,
in a limited number of sessions it was impossible to use the whole program; second,
the four to-be-treated children with LD were poor in revision skills.
Table19.4 SCORES OBTAINED BY THE FOUR CHILDREN AT A EXPRESSIVE WRITING TASK BEFORE AND AFTER THE TRAINING
Pre-test
Narrative
% orthographic errors
Total words
Total sentences
Descriptive
Post-test
Marco
Tommaso
Filippo
Elena
Marco
Tommaso
Filippo
Elena
12.57***
40**
25.17***
28***
4.36*
69*
13.04***
46**
5.85*
41**
15.51***
32***
1.46*
71*
3.98*
50**
7***
6**
3***
5***
4***
8**
4***
9**
% repetitions
17.38***
28.9***
18.85***
4.81*
0*
15.73***
2.68*
0*
% adjectives
0***
0***
1.4*
0***
2.4*
0***
2.8*
0***
% subordinate clauses
16.6**
0***
0***
0***
25*
0***
22.2**
28.6*
% orthographic errors
17.04***
19.99***
4.44**
7.51**
10.42**
8.21**
.83*
1.96*
Total words
35***
30***
87*
40***
39**
36**
100*
48***
Total sentences
4***
3***
6**
3***
6**
5**
9**
4***
17.21***
23.39***
16.1**
10.25*
7.63*
13.81*
11.04*
4.2*
0***
0***
3.3*
0***
16.1*
0***
2.5**
0***
0***
16.6*
2.7*
20*
11*
11.1**
6.2*
50*
% repetitions
% abjectives
% subordinate clauses
The training yielded positive results; indeed, all children improved their
general ability of revising a text. For what concerns the specific revision
tasks (morpho-syntactic, orthographic, and punctuation) better results were
obtained for the punctuation errors than for morpho-syntactic revision.
For orthographic revision, only two children showed a clinical significant
improvement.
For what concerns the childrens performance of the expressive writing tasks,
overall children made fewer orthographic errors at posttreatment assessment.
However, for Tommaso, the improvements were not very high, and most of his
scores remained below 2 SDs; however, Tommaso presented other learning problems (i.e., poor text comprehension), which, perhaps, affected his ability to autonomously use and generalize the trained strategies. Indeed, our program was aimed
at giving children special techniques that may help them engage in a good orthographic revision. The training seemed to work well also at other levels:The number
of repetitions decreased, and the number of subordinate clauses increased, showing that our training probably affected childrens vocabulary choices in writing and
their use of subordinate structures, that is, their ability to connect pieces of information in an expressive writing task.
In conclusion, our research highlights the importance and the positive effects of
focusing on specific writing difficulties and helping children with LD to deal with
higher processes involved in expressive writing, in order to improve their cognitive
and metacognitive abilities. This conclusion is in agreement with the work of Baker
and colleagues (Baker, Gersten, & Graham, 2003)that emphasizes the importance
of higher level techniques, such as procedural facilitation, aimed at improving childrens ability at writing. However, the present study has a series of limitations. In
particular further research is needed in order to support the intervention strategies
adopted in this study with larger groups, to show their comparatively greater efficacy with respect to other intervention programs and to better devise rehabilitative
programs specifically aimed at improving expressive writing abilities in children
with learning disabilities.
REFERENCES
Baker, S., Gersten, R., Graham, S., (2003). Teaching expressive writing to students with learning
disabilities: research-based applications and examples, Journal of Learning Disabilities,
36, 109123.
Bereiter C., & Scardamalia, M. (1995). Psicologia della composizione scritta. Firenze, Italy:La
Nuova Italia.
Berninger, V.W.(1999). Coordinating transcription and text generation in working memory
during composing:Automatic and constructive processes. Learning Disability Quarterly,
22, 99112.
Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., Graham, S., & Richards, T.(2002). Writing
and reading:Connections between language by hand and language by eye. Journal of
Bliss, J., Askew, M., & Macrae, S. (1996). Effective teaching and learning:Scaffolding revisited,
Oxford Review of Education, 22, 3761.
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D.J. (1998). Adult influences on play:The Vygotskian approach. In D.
P.Fromberg & D. Bergen (Eds.), Play from birth to twelve and beyond:Contexts, perspectives and meanings (pp. 277288). NewYork, NY:Garland Press.
Cisotto, L. (1998). Scrittura e metacognizione. Linee teoriche e proposte operative[Writing and
metacognition. theoretical lines and practical proposal.]. Trento, Italy:Erickson.
Consensus Conference on Learning Disabilities (2010). Consensus conference sui disturbi evolutivi specificidellapprendimento [Consensus conference on Learning Disabilities]. Rome,
Italy:Istituto Superiore di Sanit.
Cornoldi, C., Del Prete, F., Gallani, A., Sella, F., & Re, A.M. (2010). Components affecting
expressive writing in typical and disabled writers. Advances in Learning and Behavioral
Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing:Ameta-analysis of SRSD studies. In L. Swanson, K. R.Harris, & S. S.Graham (Eds.),
Handbook of research on learning disabilities (pp. 383402). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent student.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445476.
Graham, S., MacArthur, C., & Schwartz, S. (1995). Effects of goal setting and procedural facilitation on the revising behavior and writing performance of students with writing and
learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 230240.
Gregg, N., Coleman, C., Stennett, R.B., & Davis, M.(2002). Discourse complexity of college
writers with and without disabilities:Amultidimensional analysis. Journal of Learning
Hayes, J. R., & Chenoweth, N. A.(2007).Working memory in an editing task. Written
Hayes, J. R., &Flower, L. S.(1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L.
W.Gregg & E. R.Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 330). Mahwah,
NJ:Erlbaum.
Hayes, J.R., Flower, L., Schriver, K., Stratman, J., & Carey, L.(1987). Cognitive processes in
revision. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics, Vol. II: Reading,
writing, and language processing (pp. 176204). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Hooper, S.R., Wakely, M.B., de Kruif, R.E. L., & Swartz, C.W. (2006). Aptitudetreatment
interactions revisited: Effect of metacognitive intervention on subtypes of written
expression in elementary school students. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 217241.
MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S., & Graham, S. (1991). Effects of a reciprocal peer revision strategy
in special education classroom. Learning Disability Research and Practice, 6, 201210.
Novello, V., & Poli, E. Uno studio sulle abilit di scrittura e di revisione. Unpublished.
OMS (1992). International classification of diseases, ICD-10, X Edition. Milano, Italy:Masson.
Palincsar, A.S. (1998). Keeping the metaphor of scaffolding freshA response to C.Addison
Stones The Metaphor of Scaffolding:Its Utility for the Field of Learning Disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 370373.
Re, A.M., Caeran, M., & Cornoldi, C. (2008). Improving expressive writing skills of children
rated for ADHD symptoms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 535544.
Re, A.M., Cazzaniga, S., Pedron, M., & Cornoldi, C. (2009). Io scrivo:Valutazione e potenziamento delle abilit di espressione scritta [I write:Assessment and training for expressive writing skills]. Firenze, Italy:Editore Giunti scuola.
Re, A. M., Pedron, M., & Cornoldi, C. (2007). Expressive writing difficulties in children
described by their teacher as exhibiting ADHD symptoms. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 40(3), 244255.
Rogers, L.A., & Graham, S. (2008). Ameta-analysis of single subject design writing intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 879906.
Tressoldi, P.E., Cornoldi, C., & Re, A.M. (2012). Batteria per la valutazione della scrittura e
della competenza ortografica nella scuola dellobbligo [BVSCO, Battery for the assessment
of writing skills of children from 7- to 13- year olds]. Florence, Italy: Organizzazioni
Speciali.
Van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2007). The dynamics of idea generation during writing:An online study. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) and M. Torrance, L.van Waes, &
D. Galbraith (Volume Eds.), Writing and cognition:Research and applications (Vol. 20).
Studies in writing (pp. 125150). Amsterdam, Netherlands:Elsevier.
Wakely, M. B., Hooper, S. R., de Kruif, R. E. L., & Swartz, C. (2006). Subtypes of written
expression in elementary school children: A linguistic-based model. Developmental
Neuropsychology, 29, 125159.
PART THREE
Linking Research to Practice in Oral

and Written Language Assessment
andIntervention
CHAPTER20
Integrating Language Assessment,

Instruction, and Intervention in an
Inclusive Writing Lab Approach
NICKOL A WOLF NELSON
his chapter describes a curriculum- and classroom-based writing lab approach

to language instruction and intervention; the use of written story probes to
establish baseline profiles, guide intervention, and measure progress; and dynamic
assessment and individual scaffolding as tools for promoting language and literacy
development of students with special needs. Data are reported for reliability of the
story-probe assessment technique and for changes in language performance for 29
students with special needs (SN) and 123 classmates with typical language (TL),
who participated in writing lab instructional and intervention activities for at least
half a school year at grades 2, 3, and 4.
THE WRITING LAB APPROACH
The writing lab approach provides a context for integrating language intervention into curriculum-based, general education instruction of written expression. It
was developed by the author and colleagues, who have described the approach in
other sources (e.g., Nelson, Bahr, & Van Meter, 2004; Nelson & Van Meter, 2006).
Using a writing lab approach, speech-language pathologists (SLPs), special education teachers, and general education teachers collaborate in analyzing baseline
story probes, fine-tuning students individualized intervention objectives, and
co-planning and teaching curricular units, while also targeting students individualized objectives.
SLPs schedule time to work in general education classrooms collaborating with

teachers during writing- lab sessions (generally held for one hour each, two days
per week) to provide intervention targeting the individualized goals of students
with SN (i.e., identified disabilities and other language/literacy learning risks).
Students with disabilities are included in their general education classrooms during
all writing lab activities even if they receive some special education services outside
the classroom at other times. Special education teachers are involved in planning
and supporting writing lab projects for students on their caseloads, but scheduling
challenges often make it difficult for them to be in the classroom during writing lab
sessions.
Theoretical Model, Principles, and Components of the Writing Lab

Approach
The writing lab approach comprises three primary componentswriting-process

instruction, computer-software supports, and inclusive instructional practices. The
writing lab approach is not a highly programmed sequence of planned steps or lessons, but rather a dynamic and flexible model grounded in a set of theoretically
driven principles about how children learn. It can be implemented in any part of
the curriculum that involves writing, and it can address intervention goals targeting
spoken as well as written language.
BACKDROP principles. The acronym, BACKDROP, stands for the guiding
principles:Balance (between wholes and parts; teacher-driven and child-centred),
Authentic audience (encouraging students to communicate their ideas in writing
for an appreciate audience of adults and peers), Constructive learning (with extra
scaffolding for students with SN), Dynamic (with flexible response to emergent
learning needs), Research-based (with periodic meetings to reflect on what is
working and what is not), Ownership (for goals and progress on the part of students), and Patience (as adults collaborate and students are allowed ownership for
their choices).
These principles are derived from social interactionist and cognitive constructivist theories of language acquisition and intervention (Nelson, 2010a). They
draw on Vygotskys (1934/1962; 1978) explanation of learning as a process in
which a person knowledgeable in a domain (teacher or clinician) works with a less
knowledgeable person (learner) to understand the learners current level of functioning and gauge how much assistance the learner requires to learn new things
(called the zone of proximal development), then mediates the experience so the
learner can construct more elaborate cognitive connections and deeper knowledge. Feuerstein (1979) introduced the term, dynamic assessment, for the sequence
involving assessment, intervention, and then reassessment, which is used in this
approach. Bruner (1975; 1986)suggested the metaphor of scaffolding to represent
[ 2 7 4 ] Part III:Linking Research to Practice
the use of temporary cognitive-linguistic supports by adults as they mediate childrens learning. Methods of dynamic assessment and scaffolding are described later
in this chapter.
Writing-process instruction. Writing-process instruction draws on the classic
description by Flower and Hayes (1981) of the recursive cognitive processes mature
authors use as they write. In a writing lab approach, students work through various
phases of the writing process, including planning and organizing, drafting, rereading and revising, editing, and publishing and presenting their work. Writing-process
instruction can be situated within any curricular area, making it an ideal context for
scheduling collaborative service delivery. Units in a designated curricular area are
taught over multiple sessions, working toward end products that can be shared with
a broader audience through oral or print media. Examples of curriculum-based projects in Grades 1 through 5 include stories and poetry (during language arts), animal
reports and PowerPoint presentations on weather (during science), and business
plans and essays about core democratic values (during social studies).
Writing-process instruction provides a context that is familiar to most general
education classroom teachers and addresses general education goals, so teachers
do not see it as another add-on that they are required to implement (Nelson etal.,
2004). Writers workshop approaches have been described for students of elementary school age (e.g., Calkins, 1994; Graves, 1994), middle school age (e.g., Atwell,
1987), and high school age (e.g., Swoger, 1989), and for students with disabilities
(e.g., Graham, Harris, & Troia, 2000; Harris, Graham, Mason, & Friedlander, 2008;
Singer & Bashir, 2004; Swoger, 1989; Zaragoza & Vaughn, 1992). Teachers also
may have heightened interest in working on writing because written expression is
included as a core area in many high-stakes tests that are used to evaluate how well
students are learning the curriculum.
Within the activities of writing lab sessions, teachers and SLPs use a variety of
instructional techniques. As outlined and illustrated in Table 20.1, these instructional techniques include minilessons to introduce new processes and skills to be
used over subsequent sessions. Dynamic assessment, scaffolding, and personal
minilessons are used by adult mediators as they interact with individual students
to foster their language/literacy learning. Peer and teacher conferencing and
Authors Chair activities are used to bring audience response alive and meet general education curricular goals. Author Notebooks are designed to help students
gain executive skills to organize their work and to access to print supports when
working independently.
Computer software supports. Computer software features are used to support
all phases of the writing process, not just publishing. An example illustrating use of
the planning software program, Inspiration, appears in Figure20.1. The example
shows an earlier and later draft of a personal timeline produced by a child named
April who was in grade 2 at the time and had been identified by her teacher as a
student who was struggling and at risk for language/literacy learning difficulties.
Integr ating L anguage A ssessment, Instruction, and Intervention [275]
Table20.1 INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNIQUES USED IN A WRITING

LAB APPROACH
Technique
Minilesson
Description
Example
A minilesson (approximately 10 minutes) 1. Introduce a minilesson on story planning

is used to introduce the topic of the day
and to provide practice on group goals,
by saying, Today were going to talk about

planning a story so that it will have all the
with the steps:

1. Introduce the topic (e.g., generating
important parts and be interesting for others

to read.
story ideas, peer conferencing, or

authors chair).
2. Model the technique or skill and/or
provide counter-examples.
3. Facilitate student brainstorming to
generate personal examples
4. Provide a handout and model use of
a graphic organizer or other type of
guide (e.g., list of steps) to support the
process.
5. Provide time for students to practice
the process or skill taught in the
2. Provide a counterexample by saying:Heres

my storySomeone had an accident. The end.
3. Ask students to brainstorm what more they
would want to know and to give advice to
the teacher on how to make the story more
interesting.
4. Provide a graphic organizer and model
use of the story grammar template to fill in
information about the characters, setting,
cause and type of accident, what the characters
thought and did about it, and how the story
turned out.
minilesson for the next 2030 minutes, 5. Ask the students to think of a story idea in
with individualized scaffolding for
which characters face a problem or challenge
students with SN.
and have them work individually using their

story planners to make notes about parts of
their stories.
Dynamic
Assessment
Test-teach-retest sequences are used in

one-on-one mediational interactions to
1. Assess:If a student has trouble generating a

story idea, ask, Tell me what youre thinking.
gauge students learning potential, with

the steps:
2. Scaffold:If nothing is forthcoming, support

the students personal brainstorming about
1. Assess a students independent use of a

targeted skill.
problems he or she or a friend might have had;

once an idea is generated, ask questions and
2. Scaffold the student to use the new

skill.
frame cues to support the students ability to

think about the parts of the story represented
3. Reassess the students ability to

demonstrate the targeted skill
independently.
in the story planner.

3. Reassess:Say, Im going to help some of the
other students with their plans. How many
parts of the story do you think you can plan
while Im gone? (Then be sure to come back
and assess and celebrate independent work.)
Scaffolding
The acronym SCAFFOLD represents

the steps:
1. S tart with something the learner
knows.
2. C
omment on cues that could help.
3. A
sk questions that serve as guides,
not tests.
Start by commenting on the students good

ideas and asking about ideas for a problem that
might make a good story. This involves framing
cues, focusing on options, and providing
feedback to help the student evaluate story ideas.
It also involves encouraging ownership
Table20.1 CONTINUED
Technique
Description
Example
4. F
rame cues and focus the learner on
them.
for original ideas by listening attentively and

patiently, conveying confidence that the ideas will
5. F
eedback information to help the
learner.
come. Follow the principle, Dont forget to take

the scaffold down step by leaving to help other
6. O
wnership is granted for original
ideas.
students before returning to assess the students

productivity.
7. L
isten and respond to the learners
message.
8. D
ont forget to take the scaffold down.
Personal
Minilesson
Personal minilessons provide explicit

instruction in areas of difficulty, with the
steps:
1. Identify areas of student need that are
ripe for intervention (based on story
probes or ongoing observation).
2. Use a blank page in the author
notebook to provide information,
demonstrate patterns, and frame cues
about the linguistic feature being
targeted.
3. Help the student construct additional
examples to fit the pattern.
4. Place minilesson page in the author
notebook for later reference and model
how to return to it when opportunities
arise to use the new skill in context.
Peer
Conferencing
1. Astudents work might reveal evidence of a

gap in linguistic knowledge, such as limited
awareness of the -ed pattern in regular
past-tense verbs (e.g. pickt for picked, scard for
scared).
2. Frame cues for the pattern, for example, by
writing past-tense -ed at the top of a page (see
Figure20.2) and creating two columns, with
one for simple present tense forms (e.g., Today
I am walking) and past-tense inflections with
the -ed ending on the right (e.g., Yesterday I
walked).
3. Model 23 items and scaffold the student to fill
in others, with increasing independence.
4. Watch for occasions to remind the student to
use the -ed ending; comment on spontaneous
use and celebrate the new learning when it
becomes evident.
Peer conferencing is used to teach active

listening, critique of written products,
After modeling the process and selecting

peer conferencing pairs, adults stay in the
and skills for communicating in socially

appropriate ways, using the steps:
background as much as possible. As needed,

adults may prepare a more capable student to
1. Arrange the class to work in pairs.

2. One child in each pair reads from
accept the role of peer partner for a student

with SN by indicating that the student is being
a work in progress while the other

listens.
selected for this role because of his or her

skills in helping others. As needed, scaffold
3. The listener makes at least one

comment about something he or she
the peer interaction by referring the pair to

the minilesson handout on peer conferencing.
particularly likes and asks questions

or makes suggestions about adding
As needed, say, for example, You made a nice

comment about what you liked about the story.
information or making other changes.

4. The roles of reader peer and listener
Is there something else you would like to know

about the main character? How could you ask
peer are reversed.

5. If time permits, authors make revisions
about that?
inspired by the peer conference.
Integr ating L anguage Assessment, Instruction, and Intervention [277]
Table20.1 CONTINUED
Technique
Teacher
Conferencing
Description
Example
Teacher conferencing includes the

following steps:
The teacher holds individual 5-minute

conferences with students, scaffolding them to
1. Review curricular standards for the

targeted written product.
check off story structure components represented

in their stories and to proofread for punctuation.
2. Prepare a checklist of desired traits.

3. Schedule a session in which students
When punctuation and capitalization are missing,

the teacher frames cues to help students set goals
can take turns sitting for 5 minutes with to proofread more carefully to make sure their
the teacher and discussing which items sentences begin with a capital letter and end with
can be checked off.
4. Scaffold the student to set personal
a period or question mark.
goals about what to do next based on

the teachers input.
Authors Chair The authors chair is used to heighten
The teacher draws names of students from a can
students abilities to consider audience

needs, listen attentively, reflect critically,
with popsicle sticks to pick students randomly for

turns in the authors chair. After several students
and share opinions appropriately. The

steps include:
ask about characters names and what they

look like, the teacher comments, It seems like
1. Teach a minilesson in which the

teacher models a counterexample,
everyone wants to know characters names and

how they look; lets think about other questions
hiding behind the paper, mumbling,

and not looking at the audience.
we might ask that will help authors. For example,

Ilike the word, terrified. It is an interesting word
2. Students brainstorm better ways to

that tells how the boy felt when he crept into the
share their work, including the need for spooky basement. Following this modeling by
a public voice (i.e., projecting so others
can hear).
the teacher, comment on the students comments

and questions that are more varied and helpful.
3. Students take turns sitting in the

authors chair and reading portions of
their works-in-progress.
4. After reading, student authors select a
peer with hand raised to share a question
or comment about the selection.
5. Teachers and SLPs scaffold students to
make substantive comments that can
help authors improve their writing.
6. Other children are selected to take
turns in the authors chair.
Author
Notebook
Each student receives a loose-leaf 3-ring

binder, with goals to foster organizational
In a computer lab minilesson on how to change

font options and sizes, students create original
skills and executive functions. Author

notebooks include sections such as:
cover sheets for their notebooks. As the semester

progresses, students add minilessons handouts
1. Writing lab schedule

2. Personal goals
and new words and spellings to their personal

dictionaries. All students have personal goals
3. Minilesson handouts
4. Personal minilessons pages
5. Personal dictionary
6. Works in progress
written in Kid Language in a section of their

notebooks. The SLP scaffolds students with SN to
incorporate goals related to their Individualized
Education Plans on their goal page. Periodically the
class is asked to open their notebooks and decide
what goal they can work on in a particular lesson.
Figure 20.1.
Materials Produced by April in the Personal Timeline Unit from the Social Studies Curriculum when
she was in grade 2. Top left is the information sheet sent home to be completed with parents. Top
right is the planning sheet April completed. Bottom left is an early draft of the timeline complete in a
computer lab session using Inspiration software, with handwritten notes made during the following
session. Bottom right is the nearly finished product, produced by continuing to use the Inspiration
software. Reprinted with permission from the child and parent (April is a pseudonym).
Other software features that can support phases of the writing process include
drawing tools, voice output for a digitized rereading of the students writing, and
spell-checkers, as well as editing features for cutting and pasting and moving text.
The writing lab approach includes minilessons and practice in how to use these
computer software features, with parallel attention to their cognitive-linguistic
demands and learning opportunities. For example, to use a spell checker effectively, students must come close enough to the target words spelling that it will
appear in the list offered by the spell checker. Students also must be able to read
spelling alternatives and be able to recognize and select the correct choice when
it appears in the list. Additionally, they must have strategies for generating alternative spellings when the intended word is not in the list. Learning these processes
may require extended instruction and additional support for students with disabilities. In another example, a speech-generating feature can be used to help a student
become aware of sentence boundaries. When a missing period causes the software
to read past a sentence boundary without pausing, for example, a student might
use that feedback to recognize the need for a period (full stop), first with scaffolding, then without.
Inclusive instructional practices. The third major component of the writing
lab approach is the use of inclusive, individualized, collaborative practices. This
involves SLPs working closely with teachers to assess students strengths and needs,
establish individualized goals and objectives, and measure change. Both dynamic
assessment and written story probes are used to assist some of these functions, as
described later in this chapter.
Organization of Sessions within Units and Intervention

within Sessions
An example of the schedule for a typical hour-long writing lab session can
be drawn from a unit on how to write stories. Such a session begins with a
10-minute minilesson that demonstrates how to use a story grammar template
for planning a story. During the next 30 minutes, the students work individually on their story plans while teachers and SLPs move among them to support
their achievement of the sessions main goal (planning a story) while working
toward their individualized objectives (e.g., will work independently for 5
minutes before seeking help). The following 15 minutes of the session are
devoted to Authors Chair activities in which students take turns sharing their
story plans and calling on classmates to ask questions and make comments
or suggestions. The last 5 minutes are used to print, hole-punch, and add the
new materials to the students Author Notebooks so they are available in the
following session.
Later in this unit, another class session is devoted to revising and editing. This
includes modeling how to reread ones work and reflect on whether the story and
the individual sentences and word choices are communicating the way the author
intended. During the individual work time, intervention for a student with special
needs targets linguistic structure knowledge. Figure20.2 provides an example of a
personal minilesson on the past tense -ed ending constructed to help April recognize the pattern for this inflectional morpheme.
Figure20.2.
Example of a personal minilesson support used while teaching the past-tenseed. Reprinted with
permission from Shannon Emmons.
USING WRITTEN STORY PROBES TO ESTABLISH BASELINES, PLAN

INTERVENTION, AND MEASURE PROGRESS
Gathering Written Language Sample Probes
In the writing lab approach, plans are made and progress is monitored based on periodic probes of students independent writing ability. Baseline probes are gathered in
the first writing lab session; the procedure is repeated midway through the school
year and at the end of the year. The instructions for this procedure are as follows:
Your job is to plan and write a story. Stories tell about a problem and what happens. The
problem doesnt have to be something bad that someone did, but a problem they have to solve.
Your story can be real or imaginary.
After allowing about 5 minutes for planning on a piece of unlined paper, lined paper
is distributed and students have about 45 minutes to write their stories. As students
finish, adults (the teacher and clinician) move around the room to listen to students
Integr ating L anguage A ssessment, Instruction, and Intervention [281]
read their stories aloud, express interest, and add words that might be difficult to
discern from the childs spelling. Adults do not correct students work, but students
may make changes that occur to them spontaneously (adults write notes to capture
these processes). When time is up, incomplete stories are marked to be continued.
Analyzing Written Story Probes
Story-probe analysis is a form of individualized, nonstandardized assessment that

is used to establish baseline levels of a students written language abilities and to
identify areas in need of instruction (for all students) and intervention (to address
an aspect of SN). When additional probes are gathered after intervention using the
same procedures, they can be used for progress monitoring. Analysis of periodic
story probes is guided by completing first a worksheet (Figure20.3) and then a
summary and goal sheet (Figure20.4).1 These tools serve as a guide for organizing
clinical and educational observations of writing processes and products, summarizing the findings, and prioritizing areas for improvement (see Nelson & Van Meter,
2002).
The Writing Process and Product Worksheet and Writing

Assessment Summary and Goals
The Writing Process and Product Worksheet (Figure20.3) is structured as a checklist with room for making notes. It includes three major sections for recording
assessment data and examiner judgments of positive (+), negative (-), or emerging
(~)evidence of particular abilities. The top section is used for documenting the students use of writing processes; the middle section for recording data from written
products at the discourse, sentence, and word levels, and for writing conventions;
and the bottom section for recording observations of spoken communication (conducted within writing lab activities but outside of the story probe writing session).
The companion Writing Assessment Summary and Goals sheet (Figure 20.4) is
used to summarize the key strengths and needs from the checklist and to draft goals
to take advantage of the strengths and to address the needs.
Writing processes analysis. Direct observation of what a student does while
writing is necessary for a full representation of the students writing processes, but
constant observation of a particular student is difficult when the probe is gathered
in a whole classroom of 2030 students. Some data about writing processes can
be gleaned from the written productsfor example, a student might write a list,
begin a first draft on the planning paper, draw a picture, or use a graphic organizer.
Evidence of editing also can be observed on the students written product.
Discourse level analysis. Assessment at the discourse level includes scoring the
level of narrative maturity and observing use of cohesive devices (e.g., pronouns, verb
WRITING PROCESS AND PRODUCT WORKSHEET

Student Name
April Teacher
Birthdate _______ Age
8;10
Date of Sample
January
Planning and Organizing
Approaches writing tasks willingly
Arrives at topic independently
Picture
_ Graphic organizer Type:
Dictation
+ Notes Wrote a list of ideas
Ms. N
Sampling Activity
+
~
-
School
Grade 3
Mid-year Story Writing Probe
Observer
ASSESSING WRITING PROCESSES

Drafting
Refers to planning
Proceeds quickly from start to finish
Pauses periodically
Revises along the way
Dependent on others for spelling
ASSESSING WRITTEN PRODUCTS
Figure20.3.
Writing Process and Product Worksheet completed for Aprils midyear grade-3 probe.
Revising and Editing

Rereads work
Corrects
grammar
+ Adds information
~ Corrects
spelling
Rewords ideas
Corrects
punctuation
5 # edits
Clarifies references
Reorganizes content
Word Level
Conventions
Word Choice
Capitalization
~ Mature and interesting choices
~ Initial letter of sentence
favorite, snack, scared
~ Titles ~ Proper nouns
Over-reliance on particular words
End punctuation
+ Usage errors
~ Periods ___ Question marks
Structural Organization
Types of Sentences
Puts period in middle of sentences.
Spelling Accuracy
+ True to genre: narrative
0 # Simple incorrect
Commas
Maturity level: 2, temporal
(0%)
17 Incorrect/95 wds = 18% incorr
sequence
8 # Simple correct
___ Divide series ___ Divide
(82% correct)
(62%)
clauses
1 # Complex incorrect
Cohesion
Spelling developmental Stage
(7%)
Apostrophes
+ Clarity within sentences
___ Pre-phonetic b/d reversals
4 # Complex correct
Semi-phonetic (not all phonemes ___ Contractions ___ Possessives
+ Clarity across textlinks
represented)
(31%)
ideas temporally; introduced
Quotation marks
0 # run-on clauses (after 2 + Phonetic
Halloween candy early; brought
___ Direct quotes
coor. conj.)
~ Transitional
it back in the last t-unit
___ Conventional
+ Pronoun reference cohesion
First person; Refers to snack
Formatting
Variability
Holaween/Halloween/holiween
then it
+ Varied sentence types
Paragraphs
scard/scared
Over-reliance on a
+ Verb tense cohesion
___
peaces/pieces
Consistent past tense
particular construction
Poetry/other__________________
learnd/learned (2Xs)
pickt/picked
Compared to last probe, now is
thou/though
Omitted past-tenseed 4Xs
Sense of Audience
clearly separating words.
snak/snack
Title ~ End Brought the
(spelled phonetically as d
scool/school (3Xs)
candy back.
3Xs and as t 1X)
favrot/favorite
~ Creative and original
kandy/candy (3Xs)
+ Relevant information
+ Adequate information
Dialogue/Other literary
devices
ASSESSING SPOKEN LANGUAGE IN WRITING PROCESS CONTEXTS
Discourse Level
Fluency
95 Total # words (with title &
the end)
6.33 # words/t-unit
Figure20.3. Continued
Sentence Level
T-units
15 Total # T-units
6.33 # words/T-unit
312 range of T-unit length
Manner
Listening and Comprehension

+ Makes eye contact with
speaker
+ Listens without interrupting
~ Seeks clarification when
needed (1:1)
+ Follows directions
+
+
+
+
+
Articulates clearly
Speaks fluently
Uses natural prosody
Appropriate eye gaze
Appropriate loudness
+
~
+
+
~
+
Topic Maintenance
Situationally appropriate
Provides adequate information
Asks relevant questions
Shares opinions
Reflects on own work and others
Engages in conversational turntaking
Key: + = clearly evident; independent ~ = partially evident; still needs scaffolding = not yet emerging
Figure20.3. Continued
Linguistic Skill
~ Organizes ideas adequately
+ Completes utterances
~ Uses specific vocabulary
WRITING ASSESSMENT SUMMARY AND GOALS

Student
April
Grade
OBSERVATIONS AND IMPRESSIONS

Writing Processes
Planning and organizing
Used a list to plan. Selected from
among several story ideas.
Drafting
Paused along the way while drafting.
Teacher
Ms. N
GOALS AND BENCHMARKS

April will use a graphic organizer for planning
and will show her awareness of discourse
structure by incorporating a problem and at least
2 other story components in her plan.
Revising and editing

Added information and made 5 word-level
edits, including some for spelling.
Written Products
Discourse level
Told an action sequence story from going out
on Halloween to the next day at school. She
brought the topic back to Halloween at the end
when she mentioned having a snack of
Halloween candy after school.
Sentence level
When drafting and revising, April will add

components of causality and planning by her
characters (to raise her story score from the
baseline action sequence to abbreviated episode).
April will increase the proportion of complex
correct sentences in her writing (from 30% to
50% or more) by incorporating more elements of
causality and complex description in her
sentences.
Majority of sentences were [sc]. Also used 1

[ci] and 4 [cc]. Used subordination (When I got
home I got to eat 5 pieces of candy) and relative April will show increased evidence of morpheme
clause embedding (My favorite thing I learned
awareness by using derivational and inflectional
was math).
morphemes in her spelling (used 0/4 occasions as
baseline):
Word level
a. rereading and adding ed with scaffolding
Spelled 82% of words correctly. Some
b. addinged during revising with minimal
evidence of emerging orthographic awareness
scaffolding
(e.g., peaces/pieces) but spelled ed ending
c. using ed automatically while drafting
consistently phonetically (scard, learnd, pickt).
Conventions
Inconsistent use of capitalization and
punctuation.
April will end 90% of declarative sentences with

a period and begin the following sentences with a
capital letter.
Oral Language
Writing process oral contexts
April is a cheerful child who communicates
actively with peers. She listens well and takes
turns in social groups. Doesnt always express
herself in a well-organized manner. Has
difficulty organizing her materials
Genre specific
Follows directions well.
April will maintain organization of materials in

her Author Notebook.
April will follow the structure of peer
conferencing, taking turns, and making at least
one comment and asking one question about the
work of a peer when conferencing or using the
Author Chair.
Figure20.4.
Writing Assessment Summary and Goals sheet based on worksheet for Aprils mid-year grade 3
probe shown in Figure3.
Table20.2 STORY PROBE SCORING CRITERIA FOR SELECTED FEATURES AT

THE DISCOURSE, SENTENCE, AND WORD LEVELS
Language
Level:Ability
Feature Code and

Label
Discourse level:
Story Maturitya
Coding Criteria
One or more pieces of information without connection or
1. Isolated description plot, also called heaps.

A what next story with actions or events linked temporally
2. Action sequence
but without causality or planning on the part of characters.

May be called a temporal sequence.
Causal relationships are represented, but more as
3. Reactive sequence
action-reaction than as a response to planning by the main

character(s) to deal with a problem.
4. Abbreviated episode
A problem is clearly stated and planning to deal with the

problem is implied but not explicit.
Story includes a clear beginning, with explicit statement of
5. Complete episode
a problem, planning and attempt to address the problem,

internal response to the outcome, some type of problem
resolution, and a clear ending.
6. Multiple complex or More than one complete episode is incorporated into the
embedded episodes story.
Sentence level:
Sentence Types
[si] simple incorrect

[sc] simple correct
Sentence (T-unit) with a single verb phrase that includes a

morphosyntactic error (e.g., The boy putted the hat on [si].)
Sentence (T-unit) with a single verb phrase that includes no
errors (e.g., The dog and cat got in a fight[sp]{fit} [sc].)
Sentence with more than one verb phrase and/or two T-units
[ci] complex incorrect
combined with a coordinated conjunction (and, but, or, so),

which includes at least one morphosyntactic error (e.g., He
start/*ed to find it, but he could [ci].).
Sentence with more than one verb phrase and/or two T-units
combined with a coordinated conjunction (and, but, or, so),
that includes no morphosyntactic errors (e.g., My favorite[sp]
[cc] complex correct
{favrot} thing Ilearn/ed[sp] {learnd} was math [cc].). Note

that spelling errors are not considered in judging sentence
types, but that inflections must be represented at least
phonetically.
Run-on sentences are coded at every third T-unit in a string
when a child coordinates more than two T-units (e.g., He ran
[ro] run on
and jumped, but he didnt fall [cc], so [ro] he got up and he

tried again [cc], but [ro] this time he made it [sc].) Note that
the presence of run-on codes does not influence judgments of
syntactic correctness.
Table20.2 CONTINUED
Language
Level:Ability
Feature Code and

Label
Coding Criteria
Word Level:
/s
Plural (e.g., piece/s)
Morpheme Codesb /z
Possessive (e.g., kid/z)
/3s
Third person singular (e.g., push/3s)
/ing
Present progressive (e.g., push/ing)
/ed
Regular past tense (e.g., push/ed)

Morpheme obligated by context, but missing. Morphemes
/*s, /*z, /*ed, /*ing
are coded as present if they are represented phonetically, no

matter how they are spelled or punctuated.
Word Level:
Spellingc
Prephonetic
Semi-Phonetic
Phonetic
Meaningless letter or letter-like sequences e.g., takyskrp for I

am coming
Partial phonetic representation; letter-name strategies,
e.g., ne for any
Representing all or most phonemes
Ortho-morpho-graphic representation of regular and
Transitional
Conventional
irregular orthographic patterns (e.g., silente rule, -ought,

-ould) and bound morphemes, inflectional or derivational
(e.g., -ed, -ing, un-, re-)
Most words spelled correctly; may still be working on some
rules and less frequent patterns.
Story codes are based primarily on work by Hedburg and Westby (1993).
Morpheme coding conventions are those recommended for SALT by Miller and Chapman (2008).
b
c
Spelling codes are based primarily on Gentrys (1982) description of additive developmental abilities.
tense, transition words, and author point of view). Indicators also are noted regarding
sense of audience, such as literary phrasing and the use of dialogue. To analyze story
maturity, we use a modification of a narrative scoring scheme suggested by Hedberg
and Westby (1993) based on Applebee (1978) and Stein and Glenn (1982).
Table20.2 shows the coding conventions for using this scheme to assign story scores.
Additionally, we count the total number of words as a measure of productivity.
Sentence level analysis. At the sentence level, it is helpful to start by marking
syntactic units for analysis. We use T-unit divisions (standing for Terminable unit),
which were defined by Hunt (1965) as One main clause plus the subordinate clauses
attached to or embedded within it (p.49). Hunt (1970) recommended T-unit division to provide a standard unit of syntactic analysis for school-age children to avoid
overcrediting long run-on sentences, which may extend indefinitely, strung together
with coordinating conjunctionsand, but, or, so, and for. We have adopted this unit to
facilitate comparison across samples within and between students.
Once T-units are divided (i.e., marked with slash marks), we code sentences as
simple or complex and correct or incorrect, allowing a maximum of two coordinated
T-units to count as a complex/compound sentence. This results in four possible

sentence codes:simple incorrect [si], simple correct [sc], complex incorrect [ci],
and complex correct [cc]. The sentence codes are applied using criteria outlined in
Table20.2.
As children become more sophisticated in their writing, their compositions
should comprise higher proportions of complex sentences (i.e., more sentences
coded as [ci] and [cc]), with a higher mean length of T-unit (MLTU), and fewer
syntactic errors (i.e., more sentences coded as [sc] and [cc]). This, however, is not
a straightforward linear progression. The constructive theoretical underpinnings of
the writing lab approach lead us to emphasize elaboration before correctness. Many
of the students with whom we have worked use oral language features of African
American English (see Nelson, 2010b), and some are English language learners.
Regardless of socio-linguistic diversity, it is a common strategy of early writers to
generate sentences orally and then transcribe them directly into print, resulting in
features of oral dialects appearing in writing. Although our long-term goals include
helping all students develop competencies in using standard edited English in their
compositions, more pressing early goals often are to develop the ability to communicate original ideas in written language, fueled by the motivation to do so.
Higher rates of complex incorrect sentences at some points may, in fact, indicate
that students are taking risks and attempting higher level syntactic forms to convey
more complex relationships. Noting this, Weaver (1982) recommended that teachers should welcome errors as signs of growth. Similarly, a return to more frequent
use of simple correct sentences later in development can represent growth for some
students in learning to communicate clearly and use a variety of sentence types.
Keeping these caveats in mind, documenting students sentence types in their written story probes can contribute to a picture of their growing linguistic competence
and highlight areas that might need to be targeted in intervention.
Word level analysis. At the word level, we are interested in evidence of the students knowledge of both word meaning and word structure. Agood quantitative
measure of word knowledge is word diversity, measured as the number of different
words a student incorporates into a story. Because such counts are difficult to make
by hand, this measure does not appear on the worksheet. Computer programs, such
as Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT; Miller & Chapman, 2008),
make it fairly easy, however, to count numbers of different word roots. Using SALT,
we also code for spelling errors, although this could be done as easily by hand.
Entering word roots spelled correctly and with bound morphemes slashed off (e.g.,
piece/s), while retaining the students original spelling in brackets (as illustrated in
Figure20.5) is important to ensure the software will not count misspelled words or
inflected words as different words.
When coding word-level features by hand, examiners look for examples of
mature and interesting word choices. During writing lab instruction and intervention activities, commenting on interesting word choices is used to heighten students attention to the communicative value of strong word choices, which can
Figure20.5. TRANSCRIPT OF APRILS MIDYEAR GRADE-3 PROBE CODED

FOR ANALYSIS WITH THE COMPUTER SOFTWARE, SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS OF
LANGUAGE TRANSCRIPTS (SALT; MILLER & CHAPMAN, 2008).
$ CHILD, EXAMINER
+ Name:April
+ Gender:F
+ Probe No:4
+ DOE:January 21
+ CA:8;10
+ Plan:[list]
+ Edits:5
+ Story:2
C On Halloween[sp]{holaween} it was dark at first [sc].
C Iwas scare/ed[sp]{scard}.
C But Igot use[sp]{usse} to it [cc].
C It was fun though[sp]{thou}[sc].
C Igot a lot of candy[sp]{kandy} [sc].
C When Igot home Igot to eat five piece/s[sp][peaces] of candy[sp]{kandy} [cc].
C When Iwas done Ihad to go to bed.
C so Ican go to school[sp]{scool} [ci].
C Ilearn/ed[sp]{learnd} a lot [sc].
C My favorite[sp]{favrot} thing Ilearn/ed[sp]{learnd} was math [cc].
C It was a lot of fun [sc].
C then school[sp]{scool} was over [sc].
C My mom pick/ed[sp][pickt] me up from school[sp][scool] [sc].
C When Igot home Igot a snack[sp][snak] [cc].
C It was candy[sp][kandy] from Halloween[sp][holiween] [sc].
sensitize them to attend to new vocabulary in their environment and contribute to

their overall vocabulary development.
Students spelling is analyzed as a window into the students knowledge of word
structure and spelling conventions. This analysis involves making a list of misspelled
words, along with the correctly spelled targets, on the worksheet (see Figure 20.3)
to reveal patterns that may illuminate a childs developing word-structure knowledge (Apel & Masterson, 2001; Bourassa & Treiman, 2001). However, in analyzing
the spelling of original written story probes, the examiner should remain aware that
the spelling in these texts reflects the nature of the words a student has chosen to
write. Some students limit their word choices to those they know how to spell in an
apparent effort to reduce the risk of making errors. During intervention sessions,
we encourage students not to do this, but to focus on word meaning first as they
are getting their ideas on paper (or in the computer), with the reminder that we will
help them correct their spelling as they revise and edit.
Apel and Masterson (2001) suggested a multilevel strategy for analyzing students spelling patterns. This includes looking for evidence that students are using
their knowledge of phonemic awareness (representation of phonemes one perceives,
e.g., sop/stop); the alphabetic principle (that letters in English represent speech
sounds and letters have names different from their sounds); orthographic knowledge
(including phonics knowledge for converting phonemes to graphemes and vice
versa, association of letter patterns with spoken syllables, and orthotactic knowledge about positional constraints, e.g., -ck at the end of words); morphemic knowledge (both inflectional and derivational); and mental graphemic representations (i.e.,
the ability to retrieve holistic images of orthographic patterns).
In the early grades, we have found it helpful to observe evidence that a child
might be using a developmental strategy. Our coding scheme, which draws primarily on developmental progressions suggested by Gentry (1982), is outlined in
Table 20.2. Aprils spellings listed on the sample worksheet in Figure 20.3 show
her to be using phonetic strategies (e.g., scard and kandy), accompanied by emerging transitional orthographic knowledge of spelling patterns, such as ee (in holiween) and ea (in peaces). She, however, was not yet demonstrating morphological
knowledge for spelling word endings, such ased.
Writing convention analysis. Writing conventions include capitalization, punctuation, and paragraph indentation. Evidence of their use (or misuse) can convey information about the students knowledge of text structure, sentence structure, and types
of nouns (e.g., proper nouns are capitalized in English, but common nouns are not).
When a student has a language disorder, we typically focus on other linguistic areas
before working on writing conventions. We have observed some interesting patterns,
however, that offer insights about a students conceptions about language, such as when
a student uses a period at the end of every line of text or seems to insert periods purely
at random. Such evidence suggests areas that may be ripe for personal minilessons.
Using Story Probes to Document Baselines, Plan Intervention, and

Monitor Progress
The Writing Assessment Summary and Goals sheet that appears in Figure20.4 shows
goals written to address Aprils discourse and morphosyntax needs that were evident
in her midyear grade 3 story on Halloween that is coded in Figure20.5. In writing
this story, April seemed to be using a temporal strategy of asking, Whats next? This
resulted in a story lacking many of the features of a more mature narrative and led it to
be judged as a level 2, action sequence. Targeting the next higher levels on the narrative
scale (see Table20.2), a goal was written for April to add elements of causality, which
might be scaffolded by asking, for example, I wonder why that happened. The goal
also incorporated the next higher level, which would require her to write about her
characters plans to address their problems or challenges, such as feeling scared.
On the sentence level, we noted that April was beginning to use adverbial
When clauses to form complex sentences with subordination, but that she could
use increased sentence-structure variety. On the word level, we noted that she was
using phonetic rather than morphemic strategies to spell regular past-tense -ed,
inflectional morphemes. This was apparent in the two times she spelled learned as
learnd, the one time she spelled scared as scard, and the one time she spelled picked
as pickt. Therefore, another goal was written for her to demonstrate morphological
awareness by rereading and adding any missing -ed endings, first during the editing
process with scaffolding, then independently, and finally, automatically while drafting. This led to a personal minilesson, as illustrated in Figure20.2.
Figure 20.6 shows the story April wrote at the end of her grade-3 year, following these interventions, about cats babysitting. Her story was creative and included
a number of literary features (e.g., Once upon a time) and phrasing, such as when
the mother cat set out to look for a job. This story maintained some of the flavor of
the action sequence she had written in her prior probe but added causal reactivity and
implied planning on the part of the father and mother cats, when they left to look for
food and a job. Thus, the new probe met criteria for a level 4, abbreviated episode. In this
story, April also showed evidence of having integrated her morphological knowledge
of the -ed ending on the three required occasions (tucked, coocked, and called). In these
examples, she showed growing orthotactic awareness. That was evident in her consistent use of the -ck spelling in loock and coock, which she appeared to have overgeneralized from patterns of ick and ack. This could be addressed by showing the contrast
explicitly in a subsequent personal minilesson by helping her list words following the
two different patterns (e.g., pick, pack, lick compared with book, took, look).
Figure 20.6.
Aprils year-end grade-3 probe. Reprinted with permission from the child and parent.
Table20.3 THE QUANTITATIVE RESULTS FROM STORY PROBES PRODUCED

BY APRIL ACROSS GRADES 2 AND 3
Grade 2
Grade 3
Mid-Year
Probe
Final
Probe
17
16
23
17
124
57
95
44
123
74
8.20
Total Words
Different Words
MLTU
Beginning
Probe
Mid-Year
Probe
Final
Probe
4.25
7.67
10.33
6.33
Story Score
Spelling Errors [sp]
12
42
17
20
(30%)
(78%)
(66%)
(82%)
(84%)
(%wds spelled correctly)

Sentence Codes (%total)
Simple Incorrect [si]
Simple Correct [sc]
(75%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(62%)
(30%)
Complex Incorrect [ci]
Complex Correct [cc]
(25%)
0
(0%)
2
(57%)
3
(7%)
4
(0%)
7
(0%)
(100%)
(43%)
(31%)
(70%)
Note: MLTU=Mean Length of T-Unit.
Table20.3 summarizes the quantitative data from stories April produced across
the five probes during the two years she participated in writing lab activities. The
high productivity level and exceptional number of words in the beginning probe in
the fall of grade 3 was related to Aprils listing format for careers she might pursue.
That earlier probe story included sentences with verb phrase lists, which inflated
her MLTU. An example (with spelling corrected) was I like to give them a bath,
and Ilike to put on their clothes and do their hair and put them to sleep and play
with them and dance with them and read a book to them. This sentence highlights
the need for caution when interpreting quantitative data about any one feature in
isolation of consideration of trade-offs it might represent. Qualitative assessment is
an important adjunct to quantitative counts of linguistic features in order to gain a
complete picture of an individual students strengths and needs.
DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT AND INDIVIDUALIZED SCAFFOLDING
Dynamic Assessment
Feuerstein (1979) introduced the concept of dynamic assessment as a

test-teach-retest sequence to be used as part of instrumental enrichment activities
to teach higher level cognitive skills to children with learning difficulties. Dynamic
assessment also has been described as an interactive approach for evaluating learning potential (Campione & Brown, 1987)and supporting learning (Lidz & Elliott,
2000). The processes of dynamic assessment involve three phases:(1)assessment
of a childs ability to perform a particular task independently, (2)providing mediational scaffolds based on the observation of the students strengths and needs as the
student attempts similar tasks, and (3)reassessing changes in the students ability
to perform the task based on rates of change and maintenance of new skills when
instructional supports are removed. Dynamic assessment is used to identify a students current levels of performance and to generate insights into how a students
mind works in order to decide how best to help that student construct new and
enriched knowledge.
Mediational Scaffolding
Bruner (1975, 1986) introduced the concept of scaffolding as a metaphor for

adult mediation of childrens learning by using strategic questions and framing
cues to help them construct more mature mental models and skills. The removal
of literal scaffolds after using them as a support to reach higher places is metaphoric for the systematic withdrawal of mediational supports and assessing
whether the child retains the ability to demonstrate the new knowledge or skill
independently.
As summarized in Table 20.1, intervention scaffolding involves the use of
questions as guides, not tests, and framing cues and focusing students attention in ways that can support constructive learning (Nelson, 2010a; Nelson
et al., 2004). In a writing lab approach, SLPs scaffold the language/literacy
learning of students with disabilities while they work on their curricular products. As necessary, they use personal minilessons to provide explicit instruction to meet a students individualized objective. This could involve explicit
instruction using a page from the students Author Notebook to frame cues for
a particular linguistic element or pattern, such as an orthographic pattern for
a word family (e.g., fight, might, right, light) or the -ed ending, as illustrated in
Figure 20.2.
EVIDENCE FROM STORY PROBES FOR CHANGE WITHIN A

WRITING LAB APPROACH
Story-probe data can be used to examine changes at the group level as well as
for individual students. To offer evidence of change for students in a writing lab
approach, results are reported here for 152 students in grades 2, 3, and 4 who
participated in writing lab activities for at least half a school year. Table20.4 summarizes the demographic characteristics of the students whose story probe data
were complete within a grade level. Group results were complete for original story
probes for 32 grade 2 students (6 Special Needs, SN; 26 Typically developing, TL)
at two points in the school year (midyear and year end); for 77 grade-3 students (19
SN; 58 TL) at three points (beginning, midyear, and year end); and for 43 grade-4
students (SN=4; TL=39) at two points (beginning year and midyear).
Test-retest reliability, calculated on stories produced one week apart by 11 students in grade 3 showed significant correlations (p < .05) for all measures except
MLTU, as follows:story scores, r=.696 (p=.017); MLTU, r=.528 (p < .095);
number of different words, r=.892 (p < .0001); total words, r=.877 (p < .0001);
and spelling errors, r = .876 (p < .0001). These results support a conclusion of
acceptable test-retest reliability in the story probe measure.
Inter-rater agreement between two trained graduate students was high for T-unit
division (96%), number of different words (99.7%), total words (99.9%), and total
sentences (89.4%). Levels of agreement for sentence level codes were lower, however, ranging from 56% to 70%. In earlier work (e.g., Nelson & Van Meter, 2007),
we reported similar results for inter-rater reliability, with all coding above 92%
agreement except sentence-type coding, which ranged from 68% for [si] to 75%
Table20.4 DEMOGRAPHICS OF STUDENTS IN GRADES 2, 3, AND 4 WHO
WERE PRESENT FOR ALL STORY PROBES
Sex
Female
Race/
Ethnicity
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Special
Needs
Typical
Special
Needs
1 SLI
10
1 RISK
11
1 ASD
1EI
1 S-LI
1 LLD
1 RISK
19
12
1 LLD
2 S-LI
Typical
Special
Needs
1 RISK
Typical
10
A
Male
Total
1 LLD
1 RISK
1 S-LI
1EI
3 LLD
1 RISK
2 S-LI
11
1 RISK
2 LLD
2 RISK
12
1
58
26
19
2 LLD
1 RISK
8
2
39
Note:C=Caucasian; B=Black (African American); H=Hispanic (any race); A=Asian; ASD=Autism Spectrum
Disorder; EI=Emotional Impairment; LLD=Language-learning Disability; S-LI=Speech or Language Impaired;
RISK=struggling but not identified as having a disability.
for [cc]. These results support the inter-rater reliability for all measures except sentence types, suggesting need for caution when interpreting results based on those
measures, which apparently require more training and linguistic expertise to use
reliably, although they still may have clinical utility.
Separate repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted at each grade level for
each measure, and, when change over time was signficant, post-hoc paired t-tests
were conducted separately for the SN and TL groups to examine whether the effect
sizes were comparable for the two groups. Calculation of Cohens d effect sizes
(Cohen, 1988) incorporated the correlation between means in the within-subjects
design (Morris & DeShon, 2002). The effect sizes, which are expressed in standard deviation units, can be interpreted using Cohens criteria as small (.20.49),
medium (.50.79), and large (>.80).
Discourse-Level Changes
The effect of change over time for story scores was significant at grade 2 (F[1, 30] =
6.847, p = .014) and grade 3 (F(2, 150) = 27.111, p = .0001). The difference between
groups (TL and SN) was significant at grade 3 (F(1, 75) = 9.334, p = .003). Larger
effect sizes were found for students with SN at grades 2 (d = 1.28) and 3 (d = 1.25)
than for students with TL (d = .80 and .65, respectively), suggesting that they
may have benefitted additionally from the individualized attention they received
from the SLPs and were catching up with their peers in the area of story grammar
maturity.
Changes over time in the total number of words produced was significant at all
grade levels: grade 2 (F(1, 30) = 6.613, p = .015); grade 3, (F(2, 150) = 4.707, p = .010);
and grade 4 (F(1, 41)= 4.095, p = .050). Grade 2 students with SN showed a large
effect for growth in total words (d = 1.01), whereas the effect for students with
TL was moderate (d = .78), again suggesting that the students with SN may have
benefitted additionally from the individualized attention and were moving closer to
their peers. Small-to-moderate but comparable effect sizes were found for students
with SN and TL at grades 3 (d = .41 and .35, respectively) and 4 (d = .57 and .60,
respectively).
Sentence-Level Changes
Analysis of sentence-type data revealed significant main effects for increases

over time for complex correct [cc] sentences at grade 2 (F(1, 30) = 4.550,
p= .041) and grade 3 (F(2, 150) = 5.862, p = .004). The effect sizes for the [cc]
sentences at grade 2 were small for students with SN (d = .44) and moderate
for students with TL (d = .66), whereas at grade 3, they were moderate for the
students with SN (d = .77) and small for students with TL (d = .37), suggesting
a lag, but progress in this developing ability for the students with SN. Change
over time for simple correct [sc] sentences was significant at grade 4 (F(1, 41) =
8.996, p = .005), with an extremely high effect size for the four students with
SN (d = 11.92), who had a mean of 2.75 [sc] sentences at time one (SD = 2.06)
and 8.0 at time two (SD = 7.79), with a correlation of .996; whereas a moderate
effect was found for the 39 students with TL (d = .57), who earned [sc] means
of 2.74 (SD = 3.19) at time one and 5.59 (SD = 4.44) at time two, with a correlation of .141.
The effect for change over time for MLTU was not significant at any grade, but
the difference between groups was significant at grade 3 (F(1, 75)=12.030, p=.001).
The lack of change in MLTU within grade levels raises questions about the usefulness of MLTU as a measure of progress or the ability of the writing lab approach to
influence this skill. More explicit interventions, such as personal minilessons in sentence combining, might be needed to foster the development of syntactic embedding and subordinating for students with SN (see Saddler & Graham, 2005). It may
also be the case that longer sentences with more embedding are not always better,
particularly when students write stories.
Word-Level Changes
Word diversity, measured as the number of different words, increased significantly

over time at all grades: grade 2 (F(1, 30) = 7.268, p = .011), grade 3 (F(2, 150) = 11.816,
p = .0001), and grade 4 (F(1, 41) = 7.346, p = .010). The difference between groups
(SN and TL) was significant at grade 3 (F(1, 75) = 4.756, p = .032). Grade 2 students
with SN and TL both showed large effects for change in the number of different
words (d = 1.20 and .88, respectively); grade 3 students in SN and TL groups both
showed moderate effects (d = .70 and .57, respectively); and grade 4 students with
SN showed a large effect (d = .89), whereas the effect for those with TL was moderate (d = .69), again suggesting differential benefit from the additional scaffolding
from the SLPs for the students with SN.
Increases in the percentage of words spelled correctly over time were significant at grade 3 (F(2, 150)=6.428, p=.011) and grade 4 (F(1, 41)=19.233, p=.0001).
Additionally, group differences were significant at grade 3 (F(1, 75) = 5.897,
p=.021) and grade 4 (F(1, 41)=5.231, p=.027), and there was a significant interaction effect for group-by-time in grade 3 (F(2, 150)=3.524, p=.032). It reflects
a dip in spelling correctness at mid-year for the students with SN (when they
were attempting more different words), but a steeper trajectory in the last half
of the school year, when they moved closer to their TL peers in both number
of different words and proportion of correctly spelled words. Grade 2 students
with SN showed a moderate effect for change in the proportion of words spelled
correctly (d=.56), whereas the students with TL showed no effect (d=.05);
at grade 3, the effect was small (d = .34) for students with SN, but moderate
(d=.55) for students with TL; at grade 4, the effect size was large for both students with SN (d=1.03) and TL (d=1.02).
The results in the area of spelling were of particular interest because this is an
area of unusual difficulty for many students with language/literacy disabilities
(Apel & Masterson, 2001; Silliman & Berninger, 2011). At grade 2, when all children appeared to be gaining a grasp on spelling, there were no group differences
and no significant changes over time. In both grades 3 and 4, however, group differences and changes in spelling accuracy over time were significant. The large effect
sizes at grade 4 for students with SN (d=1.03) and TL (d=1.02) suggested that
this age may offer a developmentally optimal point for instruction in contextualized
spelling.
Cautions Based on Study Limitations
Several caveats are in order when considering the meaning of these results as evidence for best practice. The data were gathered over multiple years of implementing
the writing lab approach in different grades and classrooms, and not as part of a tightly
controlled randomized trial. Therefore, they can provide only weak evidence of the
effectiveness of the writing lab approach to promote language/literacy growth. It is
important, however, to see that gaps were not widening, and even to see evidence of
narrowing at some points, between the students with SNs and their TL peers.
Another limitation is related to the small numbers of children with special needs
in these analyses. Although many more children with special needs participated in
the writing lab classrooms than are included in these data, these analyses were performed only on complete data sets. Some children with severe disabilities at grades 2
and 3 were unable to produce enough written language independently for their work
to be analyzed in the initial samples, although many were producing text independently later in the school year. Keeping in mind such limitations, the results of these
analyses offer some support for a conclusion that students with special needs can
benefit from a writing lab approach alongside their peers with TL when they have
support from language intervention specialists targeting their individualized needs.
CONCLUSION
Comprehensive assessment and treatment of written language probes requires a

mixture of methods and a collaborative approach between general and special educators and SLPs. Original data reported in this chapter support the use of periodic
story probes and individualized dynamic assessment to guide intervention. The
writing lab approach offers a means for targeting multiple levels (sound, word, sentence, discourse) of written language that can help students with SN improve their
abilities to achieve authentic academic and communicative goals.
AUTHORS NOTE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND DISCLOSURE
Nelson receives royalties from the book, The Writing Lab Approach to Language
Instruction and Intervention (Nelson, Bahr, & Van Meter, 2004; Paul H. Brookes
Publishing Co., Inc.) and acknowledges the contributions of colleagues Christine
M.Bahr and Adelia M.Van Meter and numerous teachers, graduate assistants, and
students in developing the writing lab approach. That work was supported by grant
number 324R980120 from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special
Education Programs. During preparation of this chapter, Nelson received support
from the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through
Grant R324A100354 to Western Michigan University. The opinions expressed
are those of the author, however, and do not represent views of the Institute of
Education Sciences or the U.S. Department of Education.
NOTE
1. Forms can be downloaded from http://www.wmich.edu/speech-audiology/wlop/
REFERENCES
Apel, K., & Masterson, J.J. (2001). Theory-guided spelling assessment and intervention:Acase
study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 182195.
Applebee, A.N. (1978). The childs concept of story. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.
Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle:Writing, reading, and learning with adolescents. Portsmouth,
NH:Heinemann.
Bourassa, D.C., & Treiman, R. (2001). Spelling development and disabilities:The importance
of linguistic factors. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 172181.
Bruner, J. (1975). The ontogenesis of speech acts. Journal of Child Language, 2, 119.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Calkins, L. (1994). The art of teaching writing (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.
Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L. (1987). Linking dynamic assessment with school achievement. In C. S.Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment:An interactional approach to evaluating
learning potential (pp. 82115). NewYork, NY:Guilford Press.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Feuerstein, R. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J.R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and
Gentry, J.R. (1982). An analysis of developmental spelling in GNYS AT WRK. The Reading
Teacher, 36, 192200.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Troia, G. (2000). Self-regulated strategy development revisited: Teaching writing strategies to struggling writers. Topics in Language Disorders,
20(4), 114.
Graves, D.H. (1994). A fresh look at writing. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.

Harris, K.R., Graham, S., Mason, L.H., & Friedlander, B. (2008). Powerful writing strategies for
all students. Baltimore, MD:Paul H.Brookes.
Hedberg, N.L., & Westby, C.E. (1993). Analyzing story-telling skills:Theory to practice. Tucson,
AZ:Communication Skill Builders.
Hunt, K.W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Urbana, IL:National
Council of Teachers of English.
Hunt, K.W. (1970). Syntactic maturity in school children and adults. Monographs of the Society
for Research in Child Development, No. 134.
Lidz, C.S., & Elliott, J. (Eds.) (2000). Dynamic assessment:Prevailing models and applications
(Vol. 6 in Advances in Cognition and Educational Practice). NewYork, NY:Elsevier.
Miller, J., & Chapman, R. (2008). Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (Version 9) [computer software]. Madison, WI: Waisman Center.
Morris, S. B., & DeShon, R. P. (2002). Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with
repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 105125.
Nelson, N. W. (2010a). Language and literacy disorders: Infancy through adolescence. Boston,
MA:Allyn & Bacon.
Nelson, N.W. (2010b). Changes in story probes written across third grade by African American
and European American students in a writing lab approach. Topics in Language Disorders,
30, 223252.
Nelson, N.W., Bahr, C.M., & Van Meter, A.M. (2004). The writing lab approach to language
instruction and intervention. Baltimore, MD:Paul H.Brookes.
Nelson, N.W., & Van Meter, A.M. (2002). Assessing curriculum-based reading and writing
samples. Topics in Language Disorders, 22, 3559.
Nelson, N.W., & Van Meter, A.M. (2006). The writing lab approach for building language:Literacy
and communication abilities. In R. J.McCauley & M. E.Fey (Eds.), Treatment of language
disorders in children (pp. 383422). Baltimore, MD:Paul H.Brookes.
Nelson, N. W., & Van Meter, A. M. (2007). Measuring written language ability in narrative
samples. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23, 287309.
Saddler, B., & Graham, S. (2005). The effects of peer-assisted sentence-combining instruction
on the writing performance of more and less skilled young writers. Journal of Educational
Silliman, E.R., & Berninger, V.W. (2011). Cross-disciplinary dialogue about the nature of oral
and written language problems in the context of developmental, academic, and phenotypic profiles. Topics in Language Disorders, 31, 623.
Singer, B. D., & Bashir, A. S. (2004). EmPOWER: A strategy for teaching students with
language learning disabilities how to write expository text. In E. R. Silliman &
L. Wilkinson (Eds.), Language and literacy learning (pp. 239272). New York,
NY:Guilford Press.
Stein, N., & Glenn, C. G. (1982). Childrens concept of time: The development of a story
schema. In W. Freeman (Ed.), The developmental psychology of time (pp. 255282).
Norwood, NJ:Ablex.
Swoger, P.A. (1989). Scotts gift. English Journal, 78, 6165.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1934/1962). Thought and language (translated by E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar from
the original work, published posthumously in 1934). Cambridge, MA:The M.I.T. Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society:The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole,
V. John-Steiner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Weaver, C. (1982). Welcoming errors as signs of growth. Language Arts, 59, 438444.
Zaragoza, N., & Vaughn, S. (1992). The effects of process writing instruction on three 2nd-grade
students with different achievement profiles. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 7,
184193.
CHAPTER21
Integrating Oral and Written Language

into a New Practice Model
Perspectives of an Oral Language Researcher
EL AINE R . SILLIM AN
his volume on writing development and instruction comes at an auspicious

time for researchers and practitioners alike. First, writing is assuming increased
prominence in students education in the United States. It is far from secret that,
today, most U.S. students fail to write well enough to meet grade-level requirements, especially in their writing of informational discourse1 (Graham, Harris, &
Hebert, 2011). Writing ability that is consistently underdeveloped has also been
found for students in elementary and middle school (Berninger & Abbott, 2010).
This state of affairs is partially attributed to the diminishing experiences that students have with spoken and written informational discourse at school and home
during their preschool and primary grade years (Beers & Nagy, 2009; Yopp & Yopp,
2006). In fact, Graham etal. (2011) warn that, unless evidence-based transformations in instructional practices take place, continued writing inadequacies bode
negatively for the future educational and career choices of U.S.students, if not the
countrys common good.
Second, this volume is one of the first cross-linguistic compendiums dedicated
to the writing challenges of students with language learning disability (LLD),2 as
well as other student groups struggling with written expression.
The chapter focuses on the relevance of informational discourse for academic
and vocational success. From an academic perspective, informational writing serves
as a medium for developing a critical stance towards ideas in the disciplines that
students are expected to master (Graham & Perin, 2007). At the heart of academic
learning, then, is mastery of disciplinary specific discourses that are manifested in

deeper ways of evaluating and expressing ideas and opinions, processes that can
become treacherous for many students with LLD. Command of these multilayered
linguistic and discourse patterns across disciplinary domains defines academic
language proficiency (Wilkinson & Silliman, 2008)or linguistic literacy (Ravid &
Tolchinsky, 2002). At the same time, facility with academic language likely affirms
the social identity of oneself as a competent learner who has full access to the
learning communities that comprise schooling (Danzak & Silliman, this volume).
Informational writing also serves many practical vocational functions (Berninger.
Garcia, & Abbott, 2009). An example might be a speech-language pathologists
report that is crafted for parents and other professionals. Little is known about
whether and how skills with academic informational writing translate into vocationally specific writing abilities particularly in this era of digital technologies
(Berninger etal., 2009).
The chapters purpose is to call for a new model of practices framed by interconnecting clinical and developmental patterns on informational writing with
new educational standards, accomplished through broadened understanding of
academic language or the disciplinary discourses. Addressed first are the characteristics of written informational discourse, including types of text organizations,
topic development, and its lexical and syntactic density in academic language. The
rationale and components of a new practice model are then outlined.
FEATURES OF INFORMATIONAL DISCOURSE:CLINICAL AND
EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS
Text Organization
Types of Text Organization
A major distinction between narrative and informational discourse resides in text

organization. Whereas narrative discourse structure centers on interpersonal relationships, causal event chains that emphasize action, and a consistent, time-based
order, informational discourse is concerned with facts, ideas, and opinions (Westby,
2005). Moreover, informational discourse is not time based, but structured by
the type of text organization (Berman & Nir-Sagev, 2007), such as description,
sequence/chronological, compare-contrast, problem-solution, cause-effect, and
enumeration/listing (Meyer & Poon, 2001). However, naturally constructed compositions in more mature writers are usually an amalgamation of two or more of
these structures, sometimes within the same paragraph (Meyer & Poon, 2001),
contributing to the greater difficulty that many students encounter in processing
informational discourse (Williams etal., 2005). What is of consequence is that preschool children are sensitive to some of these informational discourse structures in
the oral domain, such as rudimentary descriptions and causality, even before they
can read or write in a conventional way (Westby, 2005; Williams etal., 2005). These
basic informational discourse schemas then have to be progressively reworked in
new ways at new levels as children experience the informational discourses of the
academic register.
Informational Genre Development
To date, no informational writing studies have been conducted on how students

with LLD process the various informational genres, much less the difficulty they
may encounter in composing these genres in writing tasks. Astudy by Beers and
Nagy (2011) is potentially instructive in this regard. In a longitudinal study assessing syntactic complexity of the descriptive, compare-contrast, and persuasive
genres from grades 1 to 7, Beers and Nagy found that, at a text level, students from
grade 3 onward had developed schemas for these genres. However, their communicative efforts in writing were compromised by limited knowledge of more literate
syntactic constructions, a finding that may reflect in part the lack of comprehensiveness in the instructional approaches used to teach writing in different genres
(Beers & Nagy, 2011, p.199). This limitation in syntactic options that many typically developing students have available potentially affects, in a less than positive
way, how findings are interpreted from writing assessments of students with LLD.
Topic Development
Most of the research on informational writing has been concerned with patterns
of school writing and the implementation of strategy instruction to improve the
self-regulation of struggling writers, including those with learning disabilities (LD)
(for a meta-analysis of strategy instruction in LD, see Graham & Perin; 2007; also
see Graham & Harris, 2009). There is less research on the development of topics and subtopics in informational writing. In a similar vein, minimal research is
available on the developmental trajectories of informational writing, including
boundaries of normal individual differences. Both aspects are surprising voids that
significantly impact on generating individual profiles of the informational writing
of students with LLD.
The chapter by Hayes and Berninger (this volume) provides a major step, as
does the work of Hayes (2011), in extending an evidence-based model of writing
processes that interconnects multiple levels of language with topic development in
informational writing (see Berninger, 2009; Berninger & Winn, 2006; Berninger
etal., 2010). The levels of language concept refers to how complex, multidimensional language is structured in the mind and in the language construction of users
(Abbott, Berninger, & Fayol, 2010, p.281), and the ways these levels are continuously synchronized to understand and use language, both spoken and written, in
I ntegr ati ng Or al & Wr itten L a nguage i nto a Ne w Pr acti ce Model [303]
proficient ways. The three phases of knowledge-telling that Hayes and Berninger
present add to the clinical literature in an important way. The model allows new
questions to be generated at the text or macrostructure level about the domain, discourse, and strategy knowledge that students with LLD of various ages and abilities
may or may not apply when constructing authentic informational texts over time.
Questions might include how topic development in the discourse of science versus
language arts changes over time in students with LLD with and without explicit
instruction in:(a)understanding varying text structures and (b)strategy use when
sufficient domain knowledge is available and they are supported appropriately to
produce more topically complex schemas in their compositions (see the Hayes and
Berninger chapter1 for a continuum of topic development in knowledge telling).
The model also offers a more integrated approach to examining where and when
breakdowns in different kinds of writing may happen (at the resource level, the
writing process level, and/or the control process level) given the social variables
that influence how, when, and what is written.
Lexical-Syntactic Density
As the Beers and Nagy (2009) study indicates, a critical feature of informational
discourse at the linguistic level is the increased interface between more complex
vocabulary and syntax. This complicated interweaving of the multiple levels of language results in greater lexical-syntactic density, for example, as found in academic
language.
Emerging Development of Syntactic Density
In a large study of two cohorts followed from grades 1 to 7, all of whom were typically developing, Berninger, Nagy, and Beers (2011) were interested in changing
relationships among sentence writing, sentence-combining, and syntactic awareness. By grade 1, the majority of children could write a complete sentence without grammatical errors, suggesting that some degree of syntactic awareness had
emerged for the sentence as a unit as well as grammatical knowledge about relationships among sentential parts. Grade 4 appeared transitional for informational writing tasks that involved two transcription modes (handwriting and keyboarding).
At this time point, the ability to combine at least two sentences (an independent
clause with an embedded dependent clause) became more frequent, more so by
handwriting than keyboarding. It appears, then, that the first glimmers of written
syntactic density occur when children demonstrate the ability to rework syntactic
structures to express themselves in a more succinct way through sentence combining (see the cross-linguistic narrative study by Reilly etal., this volume, which
provides exploratory evidence for the effect that the native language has on preferences for generating written sentence complexity).
Knowledge about syntactic density in LLD comes from two studies of oral
informational discourse of adolescents followed since kindergarten (Nippold,
Mansfield, Billow, & Tomblin, 2008, 2009). The clause (subordination) complexity of typically developing adolescents and the group with LLD did not differ; however, the two groups did differ in terms of the mean length of clause. The group
with LLD produced shorter clauses, a strategy that might reflect the need to save
face by avoiding the expression of too much complexity (Tuller, Henry, Sizaret,
& Barthez, 2012). Clearly, more needs to be known, including how students with
LLD manage the lexical and syntactic densities of academic language.
Syntactic Density of Academic Language
Despite marked variations in the content of the disciplinary discourses, such as

science, mathematics, history, and literature, all share the lexical, syntactic, and
discourse features that pattern information as more technical, dense, abstract,
and complex (Fang & Schleppegrell, 2010, p. 596). Consider this grade 8 science writing task, which requires both reading and writing as do most school tasks
(Berninger, 2009; Graham & Hebert, 2010), and is likely typical of many state testing practices in the United States to evaluate writing achievement. There are but
three sentences, all complex, that formulate thetask:
Hipparchus, an astronomer in ancient Greece, proposed an Earth-centered model of the
solar system. In this model, the Sun, Earths moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and
Saturn not only traveled around earth, but also traveled in small circles called epicycles.
Explain how our current understanding of the solar system differs from Hipparchuss
Earth-centered solar system. (Florida Department of Education, 2009, p.38)
An analysis of the three sentences demonstrates how multiple levels of language

interconnect as the architecture for expressing complex scientific concepts in this
particular instance. At the text level, the passage blends text structure like many informational texts in science and other content areas. The structure is primarily descriptive until the third sentence where readers must now infer that a compare-contrast
structure is being requested as the written explanatory format. Shifting to the
lexical and syntactic levels, there are domain general meanings (ancient, proposed,
system, etc.) and meanings specific to astronomy concepts (astronomer, epicycles,
earth-centered) (two derivations and a compound). However, both kinds of meanings are conveyed, not by formed-based subordinated clauses, but through complex
elaborated noun phrases (NP) (Eisenberg etal., 2008; Ravid & Berman, 2010; see
also Danzak & Silliman, this volume), which emphasize content.
Sentence 1: This independent clause consists of a NP postmodification via

appositive (an astronomer in ancient Greece) of the subject, followed by a NP premodification (an Earth-centered model) plus postmodification (of the solar system) of the object. Furthermore, both NPs have some degree of internal depth
since each has additional nodes beyond the head nouns (Ravid & Berman,
2010)(ancient Greece, solar system).
Sentence 2:The second sentence, a coordinate (independent) clause, is comprised by a multipart (enumerative) subject NP (Sun, Earths moon, Venus, Mars,
Jupiter and Saturn), a complex correlative conjunctive (not only... but also), and
a reduced passive (called epicycles).
Sentence 3: The question also consists of an independent clause encased
in the imperative form (explain), which must be reinterpreted as an interrogative. Complexity is further evident in the use of how, which functions
as a stand-in (a pro-adverb) for an adverbial (dependent) clause (Quirk,
Greenbaum, Leech, & Svartvik, 1985), as well as an embedding of a NP premodification (our current understanding) and postmodification (of the solar
system) in the subject of the nominal object clause. Finally, there is a NP
pre-modification (Hipparchuss Earth-centered solar system) in the object of
this clause. As with the sentence 1 occurrence, these NPs have internal depth
(Ravid & Berman, 2010).
This passage represents a text pattern common to the science register whereby
long noun phrases function to present ideas introduced in one sentence, which
are then re-represented as a subject noun phrase of the next sentence (Fang,
Schleppegrell, & Moore, 2014). This emphasis on content as the syntactic vehicle for constructing complexity, rather than the use of embedded subordinate
clauses, has not been well studied in the literature on LLD. Instead, the weight
of analysis has always been strongly tipped towards clausal combining through
surface measures, such as mean length T-unit or a subordination index, both of
which are global measures only (Scott, 2010). In c hapter 11, this volume, Davidi
and Berman offer a new tool, stacked constructions versus nested constructions, which holds promise for going beyond the surface to examine content
versus form dependencies in the informational writing of students with LLD.
It is recognized that the authors definition of stacked constructions refers to a
different kind of subordination (a subordinated unit is a coordination of two
or more clauses packaged together in a single unit of complex syntax; Davidi &
Berman, chapter 11, this volume, p. 147), nonetheless, the dependencies of the
Hipparchus passage appear stacked through reliance on elaborated NPs. This
notion of content versus form preferences, also suggested by a recent study on
the oral narratives of children with LLD (Colozzo, Gillam, Wood, Schnell, &
Johnston, 2011), merits further investigation, as these preferences may signal
noteworthy information about individual differences in composing informational texts and, as a consequence, inform intervention.
Lexical Density of Academic Language
An aspect of lexical density aligned with text organization and one seldom studied
is the greater concentration of lexical signaling devices in informational text (Lorch,
Lemarie, & Grant, 2011). Lexical signals, such as adverbial conjunctives, are essential for generating textual connectivity (Berman, 2007). They function as cohesion
devices by adding semantic content to a text, as in the examples of moreover, similarly, on the other hand, and in conclusion (Scott, 2009). In reading, these conjunctives function as memory aids and are intended to assist readers to attend to and
retain text topics in a more cohesive manner. Writers access these linguistic devices
while composing to indicate topic shifts for the reader in order to maintain thematic connections across sentence boundaries. In contrast, other kinds of signaling
devices, such as titles, headings, and summaries, although relevant for emphasizing
aspects of text content and illuminating text organization, do not necessarily carry
new semantic content (Lorch, 1989).
Turning to research on lexical signaling, two studies have been conducted,
both with typically developing adolescents and young adults on their inclusion
of adverbial conjunctives in informational writing tasks (Nippold, Schwarz, &
Undlin, 1992; Nippold, Ward-Lonergan, & Fanning, 2005). Participants could
recognize adverbial conjunctives but, even by young adulthood, did not regularly
include them in informational writing tasks. Similar to others, Beers and Nagy
(2009), Nippold etal. (1992) concluded that these conjunctions were less likely
to be acquired for flexible use in informational writing during students educational
careers unless they experience explicit instruction combined with sufficient opportunities to engage in lengthy purposeful writing for different audiences (p.114).
In view of the inadequate writing achievement of U.S.students on current state
measures (Graham etal., 2011), it seems doubtful that neither this gap in instruction nor the syntax gap that Beers and Nagy (2009) identified, have been effectively resolved.
TOWARD A NEW MODEL OF PRACTICE
New Educational Standards in the United States
The shortage of empirically grounded clinical studies on informational writing

assumes great urgency in the United States because, as noted by Puranick and colleagues in their chapter, currently, 45 states are in the process of implementing
new educational standards, termed the Common Core State Standards Initiative
(National Governors Association for Best Practices and the Council of Chief
School Officers, 2010; hereafter referred to as CCSS). These standards will also
apply to special needs students, including students with LLD. These standards and
their corresponding benchmarks were developed by a consortium of states and
are now promoted by the Obama administration at the federal level as educational
policy. The aim of the standards, designed for kindergarten through high school,
is to produce students who are prepared to succeed in higher education, todays
competitive workforce, and the global economy.
Of pertinence for practitioners concerned with LLD, the central theme of the
new educational standards is communication. Across disciplinary domains, students will be expected to employ increasingly sophisticated critical thinking, creative and collaborative problem solving, and academic language knowledge to
communicate for a multitude of informational purposes on different topics for
diverse audiences (Staskowski, 2012). To that end, a new practice model seems
indicated whereby the multiple levels of language become fore grounded in the
writing standards across disciplines. As one way for achieving high standards of
literacy, including writing literacy, the new standards place greater emphasis on
the composition of informational genres, as well as the comprehension of informational texts. Indeed, it is hard to imagine academic achievement in todays digital
world without proficiency in a multiplicity of informational discourses in both the
spoken and written domains (Nippold, 2010; Scott, 2010).
The new educational standards place greater emphasis on the comprehension
and composition of informational texts and are interconnected with linguistic/discourse proficiency. For example, all grade 5 students will be expectedto:
Write opinion pieces that support a point of view with reasons and information;
link opinion and reasons; link ideas within and across categories of information
using adverbial conjunctives; and use precise language and domain-specific
vocabulary to inform or explain (Text Types and Purposes).
With support, develop and strengthen writing by planning, revising, editing or
recreating; use technology to compose and publish in an interactive, collaborative fashion; and demonstrate sufficient keyboarding skills to type two pages in
a single sitting (Production and Distribution of Writing).
Conduct short research projects that incorporate multiple sources and perspectives (Research to Build and Present Knowledge).
Write routinely over extended time frames (e.g., research, reflection, and
revision) and shorter time frames (compose in a single sitting) for a range of
discipline-specific tasks, purposes, and audiences (Range of Writing).
Moving Ahead:Final Words
Speech-language pathologists, at least in the United States, have become increasingly familiar over the past few years with their varied roles in supporting the
oral language underpinnings of beginning reading, and, in some cases, reading
comprehension. However, less attention has been directed to writing. This is not
to say that writing has been ignored in the clinical literature (e.g., see the seminal
study of Scott and Windsor (2000) on morphosyntactic comparisons of oral and

written narrative and informational texts of students with LLD), but attention
to this critical form of communication has not been consistent. More research is
necessary to determine whether performance by students with LLD on different
genres of informational discourse, both spoken and written, may be more diagnostically sensitive than are narrative or conversational discourse tasks due to
the increased linguistic density of informational discourse (Nippold etal., 2008;
Scott, 2010).
Moreover, Ehren, Muraza, and Malani (2012) build a case for speech-language
pathologists full participation in the new educational standards. These authors
distinguish between students who have an insufficient oral language foundation to
achieve with academic language (the students with LLD) and those who have inadequate complex knowledge about or experience with academic language, which
also can be manifested in writing (and spelling) activities (those students struggling with aspects of more complex instructional language, including the languages
of reading and writing). Currently, it is difficult to diagnostically distinguish these
two groups or even consider language-learning profiles within each because of the
range of individual differences. To move ahead in understanding individual differences variation, which can then lead to the development of more reliable language
learning profiles, requires the development of new clinical tools that (a)allow multilevel and formative assessments of oral and written language system interactions
at the word, sentence, and discourse levels; (b)are sufficiently utilitarian so that
they can be used within actual disciplinary realms in the school setting; and (c)are
based on authentic writing tasks; and d) will inform instruction and intervention.
Finally, an effective clinical/educational framework must be interconnected with
developmental knowledge about written informational discourse.
NOTES
1. For the purposes of this chapter, informational and expository writing (discourse) are
used interchangeably.
2. The LLD acronym is preferred over other designators, such as LI or SLI. The latter do not
take literacy issues into account while LLD better captures the oral and written aspects of
learning to use language in new ways.
REFERENCES
Abbott, R.D., Berninger, V.W., & Fayol, M. (2010). Longitudinal relationships of levels of language in writing and between writing and reading in grades 1 to 7. Journal of Educational
Beers, S., & Nagy, W. (2009). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality:Which measures? Which genre? Reading and Writing, 24, 183202.
I ntegr ati ng Or al & Wr itten L a nguage i nto a Ne w Pr actice Model [309]
Berman, R.A. (2007). Developing linguistic knowledge and language use across adolescence.
In E. Hoff, & M. Shatz (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of language development (pp. 347
367). Malden, MA:Blackwell Publishing.
Berman, R.A., & Nir-Sagiv, B. (2007). Comparing narrative and expository text construction
across adolescence:Adevelopmental paradox. Discourse Processes, 43, 79120.
Berninger, V. W. (2009). Highlights of programmatic, interdisciplinary research on writing.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 6980.
Berninger, V.W., & Abbott, R.D. (2010). Listening comprehension, oral expression, reading
comprehension, and written expression:Related yet unique language systems in grades
1, 3, 5, and 7. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 635651.
Berninger, V.W., & Winn, W.D. (2006). Implications of advancements in brain research and
technology for writing development, writing instruction, and educational evolution. In
C. A.MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp.
Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Swanson, H. L., Lovitt, D., Trivedi, P., Lin, S.-J., . . . Amtmann, D.
(2010). Relationship of word- and sentence-level working memory to reading and writing
in second, fourth, and sixth grade. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41(2),
179193.
Berninger, V.W., Garcia, N.P., & Abbott, R.D. (2009). Multiple processes that matter in writing
instruction and assessment. In G. A.Troia (Ed.), Instruction and assessment for struggling
writers:Evidence-based practices (pp. 1550). NewYork, NY:Guilford Press.
Berninger, V.W., Nagy, W., & Beers, S. (2011). Child writers construction and reconstruction
of single sentences and construction of multi-sentence texts:Contributions of syntax
and transcription to translation. Reading and Writing, 24, 151182.
Colozzo, P., Gillam, R.B., Wood, M., Schnell, R.D., & Johnston, J.R. (2011). Content and
form in the narratives of children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech,
Ehren, B.J., Murza, K.A., & Malani, M.D. (2012). Disciplinary literacy from a speech-language
pathologists perspective. Topics in Language Disorders, 32, 8598.
Eisenberg, S.L., Ukrainetz, T.A., Hsu, J.R., Kaderavek, J.N., Justice, L.M., & Gillam, R.B.
(2008). Noun phrase elaboration in childrens spoken stories. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 39, 145157.
Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M.J. (2010). Disciplinary literacies across content areas:Supporting
secondary reading through functional language analysis. Journal of Adolescent and Adult
Literacy, 53, 587597.
Fang, Z., Scheppegrell, M.J., & Moore, J. (2014). The linguistic challenge of learning across
academic disciplines. In C. A.Stone, E. R.Silliman, B. Ehren & G. P.Wallach (Eds.),
Handbook of language and literacy:Development and disorders (Second ed.,) (pp. 302
Florida Department of Education. Description of the 2009 FCAT writing prompts. Retrieved
from http://fcat.fldoe.org/fwprom09.asp
Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (2009). Almost 30years of writing research:Making sense of it all
with the Wrath of Khan. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 5868.
Graham, S., & Hebert, M.A. (2010). Writing to read:Evidence for how writing can improve reading. ACarnegie Corporation Time to Act Report. Washington, DC:Alliance for Excellent
Education. Retrieved from:http://www.all4ed.org/files/WritingToRead.pdf
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students.
Graham, S., Harris, K., & Hebert, M. (2011). Informing writing:The benefits of formative assessment. ACarnegie Corporation Time to Act Report. Washington, DC:Alliance for Excellent
Education. Retrieved from http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Publications/

InformingWriting.pdf
Hayes, J.R. (2011). Kinds of knowledgetelling:Modeling early writing development. Journal
of Writing Research, 3, 365384.
Lorch, R.F. (1989). Text-signaling devices and their effects on reading and memory processes.
Educational Psychology Review, 1, 209234.
Lorch, R., Lemari, J., & Grant, R. (2011). Signaling hierarchical and sequential organization in
expository text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 267284.
Meyer, B.J. F., & Poon, L.W. (2001). Effects of structure strategy training and signaling on
recall of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 141159.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief School Officers.
(2010, June.). Common core state standards initiative. Retrieved from:http://www.corestandards.org/
Nippold, M.A. (2010). Explaining complex matters:How knowledge of domain drives language. In M. A.Nippold, & C. M.Scott (Eds.), Expository discourse in children, adolescents, and adults (pp. 4161). NewYork, NY:Psychology Press.
Nippold, M.A., Mansfield, T.C., Billow, J.L., & Tomblin, J.B. (2008). Expository discourse in
adolescents with language impairments: Examining syntactic development. American
Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17, 356366.
Nippold, M.A., Mansfield, T.C., Billow, J.L., & Tomblin, J.B. (2009). Syntactic development in
adolescents with a history of language impairments:Afollow-up investigation. American
Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 18, 241251.
Nippold, M.A., Schwarz, I.E., & Undlin, R.A. (1992). Use and understanding of adverbial
conjuncts:Adevelopmental study of adolescents and young adults. Journal of Speech and
Nippold, M.A., Ward-Lonigan, J.M., & Fanning, J.L. (2005). Persuasive writing in children,
adolescents, and adults: A study of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic development.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 125138.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the
english language. Essex, England:Longman.
Ravid, D., & Berman, R. A. (2010). Developing noun phrase complexity at school
age:Atext-embedded cross-linguistic analysis. First Language, 30, 326.
Ravid, D., & Tolchinsky, L. (2002). Developing linguistic literacy: A comprehensive model.
Scott, C.M. (2009). Language-based assessment of written expression. In G. A.Troia (Ed.),
Instruction and assessment for struggling writers:Evidence-based practices (pp. 358385).
NewYork, NY:Guilford Press.
Scott, C.M. (2010). Assessing expository texts produced by school-age children and adolescents. In M. A.Nippold, & C. M.Scott (Eds.), Expository discourse in children, adolescents, and adults (pp. 191214). NewYork, NY:Psychology Press.
Scott, C.M., & Windsor, J. (2000). General language performance measures in spoken
and written narrative and expository discourse of school-age children with language learning disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43,
324339.
Staskowski, M. (2012). Overview of the Common Core State Standards Initiative and educational reform movement from the vantage of speech-language pathologists. Seminars in
Speech and Language, 33, 95101.
Tuller, L., Henry, C., Sizaret, E., & Barthez, M. (2012). Specific language impairment at adolescence:Avoiding complexity. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 161184.
I n t eg r at i ng O r al & W r i tt e n L a nguag e i n to a N e w P r act i ce M o d e l [311]
Westby, C. E. (2005). Comprehending narrative and expository text. In H. W. Catts, & A.

G. Kamhi (Eds.), Language and reading disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 159232). Boston,
MA:Pearson.
Wilkinson, L.C., & Silliman, E.R. (2008). Academic language proficiency and literacy instruction in urban settings. In L. Wilkinson, L. Morrow & V. Chou (Eds.), Improving literacy
achievement in urban schools: Critical elements in teacher preparation (pp. 121142).
Newark, DE:International Reading Association.
Williams, J.P., Hall, K.M., Lauer, K.D., Stafford, K.B., DeSisto, L.A., & deCani, J.S. (2005).
Expository text comprehension in the primary grade classroom. Journal of Educational
Yopp, R. H., & Yopp, H. K. (2006). Informational texts as read-alouds at school and home.
Journal of Literacy Research, 38, 3751.
CHAPTER 22
Integrating Writing and Oral

Language Disorders
Perspectives of a Writing Researcher
VINCENT CONNELLY
his is an exciting time to be a writing researcher. The field is alive with more
activity than ever before, and this book is a clear example of the maturity of
the research that is now linking writing and developmental disability. Asearch on
the web of knowledge citation database shows that in 2011 there were over 50
journal articles published with the topic of writing and disability. Although this
is still relatively small compared to reading and disability which had 230 journal
articles published in 2011, it is a great deal more than ever before. The understanding of children with developmental disability and their reading problems led to
major advances in both the understanding of developmental disability and in the
understanding of reading for all readers. It can be hoped that similar impacts can
begin to be made in the years to come from research such as reported in these pages.
This book has about 50 contributors from 9 countries and 3 continents across
the world detailing work on children with hearing impairment, language difficulties and dyslexia. The majority of the researchers are from the United States and
Western Europe, but it is to be hoped that many more countries and languages will
be inspired by the work reported here to begin to investigate language and writing
in their own languages.
As the many chapters in this book demonstrate, children with developmental
disabilities such as language problems, dyslexia, and hearing impairment find it very
difficult to learn to write. This is a real challenge for society, given the prevalence
of these developmental disabilities and the key role that writing has to play in our
world. Most research on writing, however, has been on typically developing adults
and children and has looked primarily at writing and direct writing processes. Most
work on oral language has been in terms of oral language acquisition in childhood.
Therefore, there has not been a great deal of integration between research on writing and oral language. One of the many fascinating aspects of studying children with
developmental disabilities is the potential to integrate areas of overlapping research
and bring both closer together so as to lead to a greater mutual understanding. In
the case of this volume, the focus on oral language developmental difficulties means
the studies reported here raise many pertinent questions about the development
of writing, the development of oral language and how writing and oral language
impact on each other. The purpose of this commentary is to emphasize how greater
integration between writing research and research into oral language disorders can
make progress and the challenges such integration faces when carrying out research
on the writing of children with developmental disabilities.
The term oral language disorder is used in the broadest sense and also encompasses dyslexia as it is commonly accepted that most children with dyslexia have
problems with the subtler aspects of phonology (Connelly, Dockrell, & Barnett,
2011; Hulme & Snowling, 2009). This commentary is constructed by someone
whose research tradition is clearly in the cognitive arena, but many of the points
to be made about integration could also apply across more socio-culturally based
research on writing as well.
INTEGRATION REQUIRES CLEAR DEFINITIONS, COMMON

MEASUREMENT AND TERMINOLOGY
All disciplines develop a commonly held set of definitions, measurement tools, and
assumptions, and they all begin to use a common terminology over time. Those
researchers carrying out work on writing difficulties in special populations, however, need to be familiar with all the nuances definition and measurement in both
writing research and developmental difficulty research. The issue for integration
is that many of the clinical labels and measurement assumptions behind oral language and writing difficulties are still vague or being debated.
Definitions relating to diagnosis of a developmental disability have always
been a thorny issue and continue to resonate through the relevant literatures (For
example, see Bishop & Snowling (2004) for debate on the similarities between
dyslexia and SLI.) Clinical and research definitions of developmental disability can
vary substantially and can be driven by very different agendas (see Rice, 2004 for
a review of dyslexia clinical and research definitions and the ideas behind them).
There are debates and (usually) some consensus over most of these examples from
the relevant developmental disability literature but these are not necessarily well
known in writing research. Examples of potentially overlapping definitions relating
to clinical diagnosis from this volume include: hearing impairment versus deafness
versus hearing loss; language learning disability versus specific language impairment versus language learning impairment; and dyslexia versus reading and writing difficulties versus learning disabled. These overlapping but different definitions
can lead to differential samples that then demonstrate different patterns of behavior for what may appear to be identical populations for many writing researchers.
(See Irannejad & Savage, 2009 for an example of how the debate around the cerebellar deficit theory of dyslexia has been shaped by different criteria for sampling
children with dyslexia.) Researchers need to ensure they use samples from special
populations that are clearly defined and reflect the most current consensus about
the developmental disability in the literature and they should also be very aware
of the reported large amounts of co-morbidity of disabilities commonly reported
within the literature (Hulme & Snowling, 2009). The definitions used by researchers become even more varied when they vary by language, country, and culture.
Commonality of measurement is a key factor in comparing samples with developmental disability and making connections and predictions about behavior.
Writing, like many other areas of psychological research, suffers from a lack of commonality in measurement both in the tools used and the terms used to describe
assessments. Expressive writing is a term widely used but measured in many different ways using many different tasks. In this volume there are 18 different tasks
to measure expressive writing. When so many different tasks are being used in
the literature, this can lead to issues of comparability and difficulties integrating
research findings. Many writing researchers claim to measure writing fluency in the
writing literature, but is rarely defined in the same way and so is measured in many
different ways that are not necessarily comparable. For example, in some studies a
child who writes 30 high-frequency easy-to-spell short words in a timed writing
task could score more highly than a child who wrote 20 lower-frequency but longer
and more- difficult-to-spell words. Wengelin, Johansson, & Johansson (chapter18,
this volume) in fact posit that individuals with dyslexia could be actively using this
easy to spell approach.
When trying to link oral language and writing research, the researcher must be
aware of the methodological debates going on in the related fields such as language
measurement. For example, there is much debate over the measurement of lexical
diversity in language studies. Some researchers do not think language transcripts
of less than 50 words are long enough to give a reliable measure of lexical diversity
(Yu, 2010). This poses a potential problem for the analysis of the written transcripts
of younger children with developmental disability who will often struggle to produce scripts of 50 words or more. Careful thought has to be given to how to overcome these methodological issues. Therefore, researchers integrating oral language
and writing difficulties have to be aware of wider debates surrounding other related
areas and have to become cognizant of the methods used in those fields as well as
those in writing research.
From this volume, we can see that there is more commonality of approach in
single word spelling research where the error classes and kinds of approaches used
I n t e g r at i n g W r i t i n g a n d O r al L a n g ua g e D i s o r d e r s [ 3 1 5 ]
to design spelling stimuli are more uniform. However, this has taken many more
studies than have been published on expressive writing to reach such a consensus,
and even then there is considerable latitude in the spelling classifications used in
research and still debate around what is suitable to use (Masterson & Apel, 2010).
Writing research (beyond single-word spelling, that is) is very young, in publication terms, by comparison.
Researchers trying to integrate oral language and writing difficulties also face
the problem that many of the areas of difficulty in writing that children with oral
language problems face such as spelling, handwriting and text generation have
not been studied extensively in typically developing children. Thus, many of the
standardized measures common in other fields such as reading, memory and cognitive development are simply not available. There are some very good standardized tests of text writing available but these tend to be age limited (typically aged
8 to 16), with limited genres and standardized primarily in the English speaking
countries. There are some standardized measures of spelling allied to reading tests
also available but very few measures of handwriting such as the DASH (Detailed
Assessment of the Speed of Handwriting; Barnett, Henderson, Scheib, & Schultz,
2009)and again standardization samples tend to be from English speaking countries. One issue arising from having limited data about typical development is that it
is then difficult to agree on what profile of writing behavior constitutes a child with
a writing difficulty (See Wagner etal., 2011 for a recent attempt to model written
language in a large sample of typically developing children). However, many of the
studies reported in this volume use comparison samples of children who are typically developing and so will directly contribute to the growing knowledge base of
what a typical writer is and is not. Integration of oral language and writing difficulty
will best be served by comparison and consideration of typical and atypical samples of children undertaking the same sets of tasks whenever possible. The typical
samples should also be more than just matched for chronological age. Wider comparison samples matched for particular areas of interest could and should also be
used. This has been very successful in the reading and dyslexia literature where both
a chronological control group and a reading-age match control group of typically
developing children have often been used to good comparative effect (See Dockrell,
Lindsay, & Connelly, 2009 for a writing research example).
NEW AND EMERGING TOOLS TO INVESTIGATE WRITING

PROCESSES. CAN GREATER POWER AND PRECISION IN
ANALYSIS HELP DELIVER GREATER INTEGRATION?
Our understanding of the cognitive processes underpinning writing development

in populations who struggle with writing is not very detailed. One reason for this
lack of depth has been the difficulty mentioned earlier in measuring what aspects
of writing children are actually struggling with. Research on text production in
children with writing difficulties has usually been limited to a focus on products at
single points in time (see special edition Reading & Writing 2008 Vol. 1/2) not the
process. Children with writing difficulties tend to produce writing products that are
poor across the board and can seem very similar to younger children in their writing profiles. However, it is difficult to investigate issues of difference or delay from
studying products alone. Simply studying the product of writing does not always
inform us how the writing process may have come under strain in children with oral
language problems.
The last few years have seen a proliferation of hardware and software items that
can be used to measure the online writing processes of young writers in a relatively
natural and easy to use manner. For example, the development of graphics tablets
linked to PCs with software tailored to analyse writing process potentially provides
for a significant leap forward in our understanding of childrens writing processes.
Writing tablets with appropriate software allow the child to write on a piece of
paper resting on the tablet, using an inking pen as normal. The PC makes a record,
through the tablet, of the position of the pen in relation to the tablet, and so a virtual trace of the writing on the tablet is captured together with a timed analysis
of the writing process. The portability of powerful laptop PCs and graphics tablets allows researchers to use these tools in a school environment. Keystroke logging can be used in most classrooms and while eye tracking usually requires more
of a lab-based approach some portable equipment has been tried out in schools
(Lambert, Alamargot, Laroque, & Capporossi, 2011).
The power of these tools is that they can be integrated with the tools writing
researchers use at the moment to investigate product and process. These tools are
especially useful for identifying subtle differences in process. Therefore, they can be
very useful to identify key differences in process between children with developmental disability. For example, we may know that children with dyslexia produce
more spelling errors in a single word spelling task than controls but do they also
struggle and take longer over the words they score correctly? Does a key log show
de-selection of more complex but poorly spelled written vocabulary to be replaced
by simpler vocabulary?
The new tools in writing research are being developed as new tools are also
been pioneered in oral language research. For example, the use of large linguistic
computerized databases to investigate oral language now being used to also investigate writing such as the CHILDES (See Berman, chapter2, this volume) opens up
writing samples to be much more comparable. Maggio, Lete, Chenu, Jisa, & Fayol
(2011) recently demonstrated that most typically developing French speaking children from age 10 to 15years could concurrently process spelling and composition.
Strong effects were shown between pausing duration, writing rate, word frequency
and grapheme to phoneme consistency in this study. Maggio et al. (2011) used
both digital writing tablets and automated word frequency databases in this informative study. Therefore, although a lot of research on writing and oral language
problems has to date been necessarily descriptive, perhaps these new measurement
tools can illuminate previously unknown links between writing process and oral
language? However, as with a lot of new tools in research, these can often lead to
more complex questions rather than simple answers or questions driven more by
the capacity of the technological tool rather than theory. We may know that children with oral language problems pause more when writing (Connelly, Dockrell,
Walter, & Critten, 2012)but this does not tell us why. Nor would we know if the
pauses had been caused by the same problem. Further detailed analysis of pause
locations, latencies, comparisons and clever task and experimental design will start
to give us more questions before we have answers.
CROSS LINGUISTIC RESEARCH INTEGRATION
Another key way to appreciate the interaction between oral and written language is
through studying the many different oral and written languages around the world.
Oral languages can differ from each other and more or less from their own written forms. These differences can be used to test theory and investigate how oral
language and writing may interact. For example, great progress was made in understanding reading development in the English language, but this research has made
much more of an impact and become much more nuanced through demonstrating
how the key principles derived from that research (e.g., the role of the phonology
in making explicit links for the child between oral language and what they read
on the page) are similar in many different languages (Seymour, 2005). This can
be seen in research on spelling in this volume and also in other published studies.
For example, recent spelling research on bilingual children demonstrates how the
form of a primary language can have an effect on learning to spell in the secondary
language (Pasquarella, Chen, Lam, Luo, & Ramirez, 2011). Collaboration between
researchers across the globe is the key to success here and this volume represents
the cutting edge of research on writing difficulties in special populations of children
across borders with the nine different languages reported on here.
Another recent example of very successful cross-border research was the
European Research Network on Learning to Write Effectively (Alamargot, 2012).
This was a set of meetings and workshops organized across Europe to bring
together research on writing. It had four key complementary areas:(1)early acquisition of writing skills; (2)improvements in written communication; (3)design of
written documents; (4)Technological advances in writing tools. These areas were
indeed complementary. For example, Early acquisition of writing skills including researchers studying spelling acquisition and difficulties in writing and their
impact on composition but researchers in the Technological advances in writing
tools area provided software to investigate childrens writing difficulties (Torrance
etal., 2012). Thus, some of the difficulties of integration identified earlier were tackled in this forum. The cross language work also helped identify common ways that
spelling difficulties impacted on writing across different languages and that many of
these differences are predicted by the orthography of the oral language in question
(Tolchinsky etal., 2012). This led to a set of definitions of spelling errors with examples from several languages that could be useful for both practitioners and researchers. It is pleasing that this volume and the many contributors from across the globe
provides a similar fusion of research for the reader interested in the development of
writing applied to children with hearing, speech, and language difficulties.
CHALLENGING THEORY BY EXAMINING WRITING AND ORAL

LANGUAGE DIFFICULTIES
Cross-language integration, the development of new measurement tools to investigate writing and oral language, the investigation of developmental disability, and
the integration of writing with other areas of cognitive research such as language
and reading opens up the possibility of developing challenges to current theory. A
similar integration of the investigation of the reading skills of children and adults
with dyslexia pushed forward work on reading (for example, the development
of the dual route model of reading followed on from research on dyslexia; see
Jackson & Coltheart, 2001) and allowed models of reading development to be
tested to see if they could predict reading behaviour when things go wrong (e.g.,
Zeigler & Goswami, 2005), leading to much research pushing forward theory.
The simple view of reading (Hoover & Gough, 1990), derived from the debates
around the dual route model and research on dyslexia, has been very influential in
practice and in developing assessment tools and intervention practices in schools.
(See Rose, 2009 for how this model influenced UK government literacy policy.)
Much writing research theory still relies heavily on work carried out on skilled
adult writers and some typically developing children. Although much progress has
been made in recent years in detailing models of the development of writing (and
see Hayes and Berninger, chapter1, this volume, for a clear example) there is no
single model of writing development that provides a comprehensive analysis of all
the barriers that may be experienced by children with writing difficulties. Much
emphasis in recent years has been on examining the component skills of writing
that develop in children and how quickly they develop. This has been very successful in identifying and clarifying the important role of spelling and handwriting, for
example, in constraining text generation. This work is now being extended into
research on children with developmental disabilities and provides clearer predictions about where to intervene in the classroom.
However, there is less clarity about how the component processes interact during writing and very little work on integrating other areas of knowledge such as the
different aspects of language into the component models. This means it is difficult
for researchers to indicate to practitioners how to best intervene when children
have specific difficulties as there is little consensus on what aspects of oral language
impact on the component processes of writing. (See Shanahan, 2006 for some
attempts to make some explicit predictions of which many are yet to be tested.)
As suggested earlier, the new tools to investigate writing may help writing
researchers move forward this area and challenge theory and help us understand
how components of the writing process interact. For example, recent work by
Kandel and colleagues in France and Portugal (Kandel, Alvarez, & Vallee, 2006;
Kandel Peerman, Grosjacques, & Fayol, 2011), using real time data from writing tablets, demonstrated that childrens spelling and handwriting processes are
intimately linked to language. Kandel demonstrated that in typically developing
children the spelling of a word in French and Portuguese is produced syllable by
syllable and that children prepare the handwriting movement to produce the first
syllable before starting to write. They then program in parallel the movement to
produce the second syllable on-line, while still writing the first few letters of the
first syllable.
This microstudy of writing could have important implications for the study
of children with oral language difficulties. For example, it may be that to write a
word efficiently in French and Portuguese the child requires the ability to chunk
that word into syllables. It is known the children with oral language difficulties
have difficulty with the segmentation of spoken words. Thus, it is important to
demonstrate how and at what level children with oral language difficulties are
similar to the typically developing children sampled in Kandels work. French is a
more syllabically based written language than English, and so one may make different predictions about the level of chunking required to write English spellings
efficientlyas Zeigler & Goswami (2005) do for reading. Thus, a breakdown in
spelling could take place at different linguistic levels (e.g., morpheme, syllable,
grapheme, etc.) when children struggle with writing in different languages. Kandel
makes the point that theories of spelling development need to integrate with theories of motor control and handwriting (Van Galen, 1991) to truly model the writing of words.
This new work shows how spelling and handwriting interact in ways that are
determined by complex aspects of language at the word, subword and even letter
level. This work can challenge current component based theory, lead us to question assumptions about the writing process and make predictions about the role
that language plays in writing development. With integration, the links between
oral language and writing will become more explicit and move beyond the simple
box and arrow marked language on the fringes of writing-development models,
but at same time they will become more complex and so probably more perplexing.
INTEGRATION WITH THE TASK ENVIRONMENT
One of the major criticisms of the cognitive approach to studying developmental disability is the apparent disregard for the environmental influences going on
around the child. Although there may be a genetic basis for many aspects of oral
language difficulties, language and, in particular, written language has to be learned.
Writing is taught, typically in classrooms and takes many years to be mastered even
into and beyond college level. Therefore, writing researchers have to grapple with
instruction and the task environment (Hayes & Berninger, c hapter 1, this volume). We will not understand how writing develops or how it can be improved
unless we understand how instruction interacts with writing development, especially for those challenged by writing. This is not just about informing education
about what works but integrating and theorizing how instruction works to actually
develop writing (see Thompson, Connelly, Fletcher-Flinn, & Hodson, 2009 for an
example from reading).
The work of Graham, Berninger, and colleagues in the United States has been
instrumental in this regard in leading work to integrate writing instruction and
writing development. This has included work on children with writing difficulties
(Berninger, Nielsen, Abbott, Wijsman, & Raskind, 2008a, Berninger etal., 2008b;
Harris, Graham, Mason, & Friedlander, 2008; Graham & Harris 2005, 2009).
Further work to specify the explicit connection from instruction to writing needs
to be undertaken in other languages than English with a closer integration of language and disability-specific predictions in order to integrate oral language research
and writing difficulties. Recent work by Puranik, Lombardino, & Altmann (2007)
provides a good model to take forward this area. This research makes comparisons
across language and writing measures of samples of children with dyslexia, children
with SLI and typically developing children and uses theories about development
disability to make predictions about writing profile differences. The children with
dyslexia did not differ significantly from age matched typically developing children
in the amount of ideas produced in a text but were less skilled at producing complex
sentences. Puranik etal. (2007) linked their results with some recent studies looking at language skills, showing differences in grammatical skills related to morphology in dyslexia populations.
This integration of writing research with oral language disorder research
could have some important impacts on the teaching of writing for these children. This research though should not be done in a vacuum. The close involvement of education professionals who are in the front line of dealing with oral
language and writing problems should be a priority for researchers. Listening
and working with education professionals, such as classroom teachers, can provide a strong test of theory and contribute to theory building that can impact on
both practice and research. We have been able to do just this in the UK recently
running a series of workshops on writing with classroom teachers based on a
developmental model of writing (Connelly & Dockrell, 2011). These have been
successful in identifying many areas of concern raised by teachers for researchers about the links between oral language problems and writing while also being
successful in integrating and discussing problems and difficulties with writing
measurement tools.
CONCLUSIONS ABOUT INTEGRATION
In order to succeed in integrating research on writing and oral language disability,

we need to ensure international co-operation through comparative cross language
studies. These studies need to be done on the basis of shared conceptions of writing
development, language, and disability. Measurement needs to be well designed and
reasonably common wherever possible, so comparisons can be made. Recognition
of current methods and debates in both writing research and developmental disability need to be regarded and considered when designing research. The repertoire
of new tools to measure writing process, as well as product, along with new tools in
language research will allow us to ask more complex questions and challenge current theory. Current theory is good at identifying components of the writing process but not so strong on how these components interact. The new tools can help
unpick these interactions and allow us to question current theory. Over and above
this, the study of writing instruction will both develop effective methods of help for
children with problems when writing, but it can also inform theory development.
Cross-linguistic, theory-driven, classroom-based interventions using modern measurement tools sampling many aspects of writing and oral language could provide
much needed information on where children are struggling with learning to write
and what succeeds best with them in the classroom.
Therefore, we can conclude with some very positive thoughts. The research
reported in this volume makes a very strong contribution to understanding the difficulties those children with oral language problems face when learning to write.
The volume provides clear examples of the integration that is already taking place
between writing and oral language research.
REFERENCES
Alamargot, D. (2012). Opening address. Final Conference of the COST Action IS0703European
Research Network on Learning to Write Effectively, May 78, University of Poitiers,
France.
Barnett, A., Henderson, S.E., Scheib, B., & Schultz, J. (2009). Development and standardisation
of a new handwriting speed test:The DASH. British Journal of Educational Psychology
Monograph Series ll, Number 6Teaching and Learning, 137158.
Berninger, V.W., Nielsen, K.H., Abbott, R.D., Wijsman, E., & Raskind, W. (2008a). Writing
Berninger, V. W., Winn, W. D., Stock, P., Abbott, R. D., Eschen, K., Lin, S-J.,...Nagy, W.
(2008b). Tier 3 specialized writing instruction for students with dyslexia. Reading and
Bishop, D. V. M., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Developmental dyslexia and specific language
impairment:Same or different? Psychological Bulletin, 130, 858886.
Connelly, V, Dockrell, J. E., Barnett, A. (2011). Children challenged by writing due to language and motor difficulties. In V. Berninger (Ed.), Cognitive psychology of writing
handbook:Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive

psychology (pp. 217245). NewYork, NY:Psychology Press.
Connelly, V., & Dockrell, J.E. (2011) Developing evidence based practice through use of a developmental model of writing. ESRC Follow on Fund Research award. Swindon, UK,
Economic and Social Research Council.
Connelly, V., Dockrell, J.E. Walter, K., & Critten, S. (2012). Predicting the quality of composition and written language bursts from oral language, spelling and handwriting skills in
children with and without specific language impairment. Written Communication, 29(3),
121186.
Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (2005). Writing better:Teaching writing processes and self regulation
to students with learning problems. Baltimore, MD:Brookes.
Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (2009). Evidence based writing practices:Drawing recommendations from multiple sources. British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series ll,
Number 6Teaching and Learning, 95112.
Harris, K.R., Graham, S., Mason, L., & Friedlander, B. (2008). Powerful writing strategies for all
students. Baltimore, MD:Brookes.
Hoover, W.A., & Gough, P.B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing:An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 2(2), 127160.
Hulme, C.J., & Snowling, M.J. (2009). Developmental disorders of language learning and cognition. Oxford, England:Blackwell/Wiley.
Irannejad, S., & Savage, R. (2009). The cerebellar deficit theory of developmental dyslexia: Evidence and implications for intervention. In C. Wood & V. Connelly (Eds.),
Contemporary perspectives on reading and spelling (pp. 254270). Oxford, England:United
Kingdom; Routledge.
Jackson, N.E., & Coltheart, M. (2001). Routes to reading success and failure:Toward an integrated
cognitive psychology of atypical reading. NewYork, NY:Psychology Press.
Kandel, S., Alvarez, C. J., & Vallee, N. (2006). Syllables as processing units in handwriting
production. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance, 32,
1831.
Kandel, S., Peereman, R., Grosjacques, G., & Fayol, M. (2011). For a psycholinguistic model of
handwriting production:Testing the syllable-bigram controversy. Journal of experimental psychology:Human perception and performance, 37, 13101322.
Lambert, E., Alamargot, D., Laroque, D., & Caporossi, G. (2011). Dynamics of spelling process
during a copy task. Effect of frequency and regularity. Canadian Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 65(3), 141150.
Maggio, S., Lt, B., Chenu, F., Jisa, H., & Fayol, M. (2011). Tracking the mind during writing:Immediacy, delayed, and anticipatory effects on pauses and writing rate. Reading
and Writing:An Interdisciplinary Journal.24(4), 121.
Masterson, J. J., & Apel, K. (2010). The spelling sensitivity score: Noting developmental
changes in spelling knowledge. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 36, 3545.
Pasquarella, A., Chen, X., Lam, K., Luo, Y.C. and Ramirez, G. (2011). Cross-language transfer of morphological awareness in ChineseEnglish bilinguals. Journal of Research in
Reading, 34, 2342.
Puranik, C. S., Lombardino, L. J., & Altmann, L. J. (2007). Writing through retellings: an
exploratory study of language-impaired and dyslexic populations. Reading and Writing,
Interdisciplinary Journal, 20(3), 251272.
Rice, M. (2004). Developmental dyslexia in adults a research review. National research and development centre for adult literacy and numeracy. www.nrdc.org.uk
Rose, J. (2009). Identifying and teaching children and young people with dyslexia and literacy difficulties. London, England:Department for Children Schools and Families.
Seymour, P.H. K. (2005) Theoretical framework for beginning reading in different orthographies. In M. Joshi & P. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy. Mahwah,
N.J.:Erlbaum.
MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp.171
Thompson, G.B, Connelly, V, Fletcher-Flinn, C., & Hodson, S.J. (2009). The nature of skilled
adult reading varies with type of instruction in childhood. Memory and Cognition, 37,
223234.
Tolchinsky, L., Sala, N., Alves, R., Birgisdottir, F., Connelly, V., Fayol, M., & Joshi, M. (2012).
Learning to spell in different languages and orthographies. Report of the Working
Group1Early acquisition of writing skills. COST Action IS0703European Research
Network on Learning to Write Effectively, Poitiers, France.
Torrance, M., Alamargot, D., Castello, M., Llull, R., Ganier, F., Kruse, O.,...Van Waes,
L. (2012). Learning to write effectively. Current trends in European research. Bingley,
England:Emerald Group Publishing.
Van Galen, G. P. (1991). Handwriting: Issues for a psychomotor theory. Human Movement
Science, 10, 165191.
Wagner, R.K., Puranik, C.S. Foorman, B., Foster, E., Wilson, L.G., Tschinkel, E., & Kantor,
P.T. (2011). Modelling the development of written language. Reading and Writing:An
Yu, G. (2010). Lexical Diversity in Writing and Speaking Task Performances. Applied
Zeigler, J.C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled
reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin,
131, 329.
CHAPTER23
The Role of Oral Language in

Developing Written Language Skills
Questions for European Pedagogy?
JULIE E. DOCKRELL AND BARBAR A ARF
UNDERSTANDING WRITING PROBLEMS

Writing today is not a frill for the privileged few, but an essential skill for the many. (National
Commission on Writing, 2003)
Understanding the development of writing and the problems in producing written text requires an awareness of the task demands involved in writing but it also
requires consideration of the characteristics of the learner and the environment in
which they write and learn to write. Exploring the diversity of learning environments should support the development of a flexible framework for understanding writing which can inform pedagogy and assessment in different languages and
educational settings. Models of writing must address these dimensions (see Hayes
& Berninger, c hapter 1, this volume) and draw on an understanding of development and the developmental challenges experienced by learners. In this book we
have highlighted the importance of oral language. Oral language influences writing
development in two ways: (1) as characteristics of the learner, because language
knowledge and language skills are important resources that the learner brings to
the task, and (2) as characteristics of the environment, as learners grow in different
linguistic contexts and are exposed to different uses of language in informal and
academic settings (see Danzak & Silliman, c hapter 12, and Silliman, c hapter 21,
this volume).
Learning to write is a language learning task, and as such it involves both structural and pragmatic dimensions of language. Understanding the structure of words
supports, for example, the development of spelling skills (see Hayes et al., chapter
4; Levie et al., c hapter 6; and Snchal, chapter10, this volume) while writing in
different genres requires an understanding of the reasons for producing the specific text and the different perspectives of the writer and the reader (see Berman,
chapter 2; and Silliman, chapter 21, this volume). From this point of view, oral
and written language learning are related developmentally as difficulties in acquisition of oral language affect the acquisition of and manipulation of the processes
involved in writing and concurrently, as the production and comprehension of oral
and written language share important components (Shanahan, 2006). The chapters
in this book explore the ways in which oral and written language influence each
across development. A better understanding of this relationship has the potential
to inform assessment, teaching and targeted interventions. This, however, can only
occur if we consider the ways in which the contexts in which children learn to write
impact on the development of their writing skills.
THE WRITING ENVIRONMENT
A substantial part of writing research has focused on the learner and the writing
skills they are trying to master (see Boscolo, chapter3, this volume). It is important
to broaden our focus beyond the learner and the task and address the ways in which
different aspects of the environment impact on writing. Implicit within some of the
chapters in the book has been the key role of the environment. Nelson (chapter20,
this volume), for example, systematically explains how structuring the input that
struggling writers receive can enhance their writing skills and Correa (chapter17,
this volume) shows how engaging with students learning environments can serve
to support the production of written text.
The environment consists of the external physical and social world of the
child and for children growing up in Europe the contexts in which the teaching
and learning of writing occur varies substantially. Across Europe the organization of compulsory education differs markedly (Eurydice, 2005). The majority of
National educational programmes state precisely what subjects should be taught
or which activities should be carried out, while also specifying desirable educational approaches and methods of assessment (Eurydice). Although no comparative study on the teaching of writing has yet been done across European countries
the mastery of writing is seen as a key competency (Eurydice Key Competencies,
2002). Moreover, writing is typically a core component of the final examinations
taken at the end of formal education. Countries (and regions) differ in how they
approach this objective and countries (and regions) differ in the ways in which
they identify and manage the learning difficulties experienced by the pupils in their
schools (COST sociolinguistic report, ERN-LWE).
There are different levels at which the environment can be examined and developmental psychologists have gone someway in mapping these levels (see for example the work of Bronfenbrenner, 1979). For children who experience difficulties
with writing, their immediate environment will differ in terms of the language(s)
they are learning, their learning opportunities and the ways in which teachers are
prepared to support their learning. Teachers will also vary in their knowledge of language learning problems and what they believe can be done to effectively enhance
writing performance (Cutler & Graham, 2008; Dockrell & Lindsay, 2001; Graham,
Harris, et al., 2008; Graham, Morphy, et al., 2008). Teachers play a key role in supporting language and the relevant learning activities in the classroom. Teacherbased approaches to assessment and intervention are, thus, important and should
be integrated with both an analysis of the learners needs and clear understanding
of the task parameters (see Boscolo, 2011 and Boscolo, chapter 3, this volume). As
Boscolo argues (2011) a teacher-based approach is one in which the focus is on
writing as an instructional problem rather than a linguistic or a cognitive task. As
such, what matters most is finding effective ways to teach writing, engage pupils in
varying writing tasks and to motivate pupils to write. A teacher-based approach also
considers the writing task as a classroom activity. Language learning difficulties and
individual differences in the writing outcomes are considered the natural expression of a challenging task. Writing is, therefore, conceived as a learning space for all
writers, even though the ways in which learners are challenged will vary.
The Complexity of the Language-Learning Environment
The heterogeneity of the population, that is the numbers of children who are not
native language speakers, children who are multilingual or children who come from
disadvantaged backgrounds, raises considerable challenges for researchers and
practitioners alike. This variability in language experiences and opportunities also
increases the complexity of understanding childrens writing difficulties. Empirical
research examining educational performance and social disadvantage has consistently demonstrated how factors such as child poverty, parental education and
income, parental attitudes, and neighborhood factors impact educational achievement. These factors play a significant role in students test scores in lower secondary
education (Machin, 2006). Disadvantage may differentially affect the predictors of
pupils understanding of the writing process (Korat & Schiff, 2005)and the identification of their language learning needs (Dockrell, Ricketts, & Lindsay, 2012).
Together these factors will affect the ways pupils engage in the writing process but
also the ways they learn and the ways in which their learning needs are conceptualized, assessed, and supported.
All these elements contribute to the complexity of the language-learning environment in Europe. As the COST action on learning to write effectively has indicated, understanding the differences across European contexts will provide a range
T h e R o l e o f O r al L a n g ua g e i n D e v e l o p i n g W r i t i n g S k i ll s [ 3 2 7 ]
BOX 23.1 COST SOCIOLINGUISTIC REPORT
Provide the background information necessary for psycholinguistic studies.

Given the diversity and complexity of sociolinguistic configuration, it is not
sufficient to characterize populations as monolingual or bilingual; it is necessary to gain precision in the description of the linguistic environment of the
subjects of psycholinguistic studies.
Identify possible intervening variables when evaluating writing interventions. Factors such as the presence of multiple languages at school or the central control of the writing curriculum may impose different constraints and
may interfere with or hinder the applicability and development of writing
interventions.
Design comparative studies with a specific purpose. Current diversity can
be exploited as a natural laboratory for proving the effects of multilingualism,
unique curriculums, precocious teaching of writing, lack of guidelines for
teaching writing, and so forth. Each of these naturally occurring differentiating
features may be turned into the independent variable of a diversity of studies.
of data to enhance our understanding of the writing process. Box 23.1 lists the benefits that the COST action Working Group1 indicated would result from such a
knowledge base.
In this chapter, we identify a series of questions about the learning environment
that are relevant to the understanding of research in writing and to the implementation of writing interventions for pupils who are experiencing difficulties. Questions
that should help develop effective pedagogy and raise questions for future research
on instruction and intervention. For each question, we explain the potential impact
on the teaching of writing and pupils learning to write, and where possible we indicate specific chapters in the book that consider these issues.
1. What Is the Relationship Between Oral and Written Language?
As the chapters in this volume demonstrate, language systems vary in terms of their
structural aspects and the differences in these parameters impact on the way children learn to write, the speed with which they master the mechanics of writing,
and the specific linguistic problems they face with the orthography and linguistic
relations within the texts. Orthographic systems can vary in their transparency. This
distinction reflects the ways in which oral language is represented in writing and the
levels of correspondence between speech sounds and orthographic forms: English
and French are considered to be deep orthographies (see for example, Hayes,
Treiman, and Geers, c hapter 4, this volume, and Casalis, c hapter 15, this volume),
whereas Italian and Spanish are considered to be shallow orthographies (see Arf,
De Bernardi, Pasini, & Poeta, 2012; Arf et al., chapter 7, this volume, and Serrano
& Defior, chapter 16, this volume). This variation in transparency is reflected in
the manner in which writing difficulties manifest themselves across languages and
the conceptions that teachers and clinicians hold. Thresholds for what is considered average levels of achievement will also differ. For example, in languages that
have a deep orthography, but not a shallow orthography, spelling errors are common for extended periods of time. Different language systems will also show different markers of writing difficulties such that morphological spelling errors are
evident in English, French, and Hebrew, which have a silent (but spelt) morphology (Levie, Ravid, Freud, and Most, c hapter 6, this volume; Nagy, Berninger, &
Abbott, 2006; Nunes, Bryant, & Bindman, 1997; Pacton, & Fayol, 2003), but not in
Italian (the only exception could to be the case of spelling errors produced by children with hearing loss, see Arf et al. chapter 7, this volume). Finally, the extended
mastery of transcription skills will influence the development of text production
skills (Berninger & Swanson, 1994; Berninger, Yates, Cartwright, Rutberg, Remy,
& Abbott, 1992), and these problems may be more evident in students with language learning difficulties (Dockrell, Lindsay, & Connelly, 2009). For languages
with more transparent orthographies grammar may be a more powerful influence
on early difficulties (Arf, Dockrell, & De Bernardi, submitted). Thus researchers and practitioners alike need to move beyond a focus on the orthography and
consider morphology, the lexicon and syntax. These dimensions of the language
system should be examined both on their own and in interaction with the orthographic representations that are generated (see for example, Levie et al., Chapter 6
and Richards et al., 2006). Systematic examination of these factors will inform both
theory and intervention (Arf, 2012; Dockrell, 2009).
2. Preparing Teachers to Teach Writing?
Teachers play a key role in supporting pupils writing skills and teacher training in
writing and language will be contributing factors in the frequency of strategies used
by teachers (Kjellin & Wennerstrm, 2006). In deciding how to prepare teachers
to support writing instruction, we need to ask questions about which approaches
to writing instruction are most effective and whether they are effective for all pupils
(Graham & Perin, 2007).
Over recent years Graham and his colleagues have completed a range of meta
analyses examining the ways in which writing can be supported in schools (Graham,
Harris, & Hebert, 2011; Graham & Hebert, 2010; Graham & Perin, 2007; Morphy
& Graham, 2012; Rogers & Graham, 2008). Many of these interventions will
offer effective approaches to teaching pupils with language learning difficulties.
Three general recommendations for the teaching of writing can be derived from
this research:(1)interventions focused on spelling alone are less effectives than
interventions integrating spelling and compositional skills instruction (Berninger

etal., 2002); (2)integration of different linguistic representations that underpin
the development of spelling skills and instruction focused on morphology can positively affect the spelling skills (Richards etal., 2006); (3)interventions integrating
explicit strategies instruction with self-regulated strategy development is particularly effective with students showing learning disabilities (Bassett Berry & Mason,
2012; Taft & Mason, 2011). In sum, interventions stimulating the integration of
language skills used in spelling and those integrating the different components
of the writing process, including text generation, in a systematic fashion are most
effective. Promoting the development of executive functions linked to planning and
revising is also important as pupils develop their transcription skills. Planning and
revising enable writers to organize text production and regulate the execution of
the language processes through monitoring and self-evaluation strategies (Bassett
Berry & Mason, 2012). Providing additional scaffolding opportunities may be
required because it may be difficult for pupils with language learning difficulties
to generalize the knowledge taught in one context to another situation (Fuchs &
Fuchs, 1998).
Translating these recommendations into effective instructional practices requires
the involvement of teachers and policymakers. This process is neither quick nor
easy. For example differentiated teaching strategies for writing were investigated as
part of a longitudinal study in Australia (Moni etal., 2007; Van Kraayenoord, Moni,
Jobling, Koppenhaver, & Elkins, 2004). Using a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods the study examined teachers knowledge, attitudes, and implementation of practices around the teaching of writing to students with developmental and
learning disabilities in inclusive middle-years mainstream classroom (equivalent of
ages 11 to 14years). Students writing skills and teachers attitudes were assessed
through questionnaires. Teachers participated in workshops to develop their teaching of writing which were then integrated into classroom practice and monitored
over a 10-week period by the teachers themselves. They were also observed in their
classrooms. Data were systematically collected in the workshops and during lesson
observations. Results showed that varying teaching strategies to suit the needs of all
children is a complex, time consuming process. The teachers were all positive about
the new ideas and valued the opportunity to expand their knowledge. However,
the transfer of ideas from workshops into classrooms was limited. Observations
showed varied levels of intensity of applications and several teachers felt uncertain
about trialing new strategies. Many felt unsupported in their classrooms or found
that there was not enough time to choose teaching strategies to fit a purpose. Others
found themselves lacking the necessary skills to vary their teaching in line with the
needs of their pupils.
Implementing effective writing strategies for pupils with language learning difficulties is challenging. Teachers require a sound knowledge of the processes that
underpin writing development and an understanding of the specific difficulties
which will challenge pupils. Teachers need also to develop skills that allow them
to flexibly respond to pupils needs in an evidence informed manner and develop

an awareness of how to monitor progress which may be slow and halting (see
Correa, chapter17, this volume and Nelson, chapter20, this volume). Flexibility in
approach and monitoring progress should be considered essential components of
writing instruction (Graham, Harris, & Hebert, 2011).
3. The Nature of the Curriculum and Assessing Writing
Curriculums vary between countries (Eurydice) and change overtime within countries, often as a result of political ideology. For example, developing spelling skills is
firmly embedded in the English national curriculum, whereas spelling is not taught
systematically in Israel (Levie et al., chapter 6, this volume). Currently, the UK government is significantly revising the way in which writing is assessed (Department
of Education, 2012). Inevitably these differences among countries and changes
over time within countries will affect the ways in which pupils progress, what teachers prioritize in their teaching objectives, and the writing skills that are monitored.
Timely sensitive assessment of pupils writing competencies is a key step to progression. Pupils need to be assessed on reliable and valid measures and frequently
high stakes national tests do not provide this information (Graham et al., 2011).
Thus, it becomes important to examine the ways in which formative assessment can
drive writing development for children, and monitoring change is a key component
in that activity (see Enhancing Writing Skill in Children, 2012).
4. Identifing Struggling Writers?
When children have developmental difficulties or academic problems, their needs

can be assessed and understood in a number of different ways. One approach is to
search for a diagnostic label such as dyslexia, dysgraphia, specific language impairment, autistic spectrum difficulties, or ADHD. These labels may provide indicative information about the difficulties pupils have with producing written text
(Berninger & OMalley, 2011). However, such approaches fail to address the considerable overlap in difficulties with text production pupils might have (Dockrell,
2009). When specific instructional choices have to be made, teachers will need to
move beyond diagnostic labels and identify the areas in the writing process that are
challenging the pupil, the strategies that are used and the demands of the language
and instructional environment (Danzak & Silliman, chapter 12, this volume, and
Nelson, c hapter 20, this volume).
Accurate targeting of interventions requires that the pupils difficulties can
be reliably ascertained, and that these differ from what would be expected by
children developing typically in that educational and social context. It is also
implicit that children have been exposed to appropriate instruction, that is, they
have failed to learn despite being taught consistently in an evidence-informed

fashion. Yet many teachers may not provide sufficient time for writing instruction, and slow and inconsistent progress may reflect the quality and quantity of
the teaching provided (Cutler & Graham, 2008). Writing instruction will also
vary across language systems, instructional contexts, and for children with different initial language skills. Some children may be vulnerable because of their
socioeconomic status or as a result of not being first-language speakers of the
majority language. As Danzak and Silliman show in c hapter 12 of this volume,
distinguishing between pupil-based and context-based factors in the assessment of learning difficulties under these conditions is not always an easy task
and may lead to erroneous conclusions. Oral language is not only a cognitive
tool, but also an important means of social communication and cultural identification that may obscure the reason or source of the childs learning difficulty.
Language-learning problems in a second language may depend on the childs
learning disability, on a lack of appropriate learning opportunities, or on motivational aspects related to the childs use of language in authentic communicative
and everyday life contexts.
5. Meeting the Needs of Struggling Writers?
The ability to produce written text in an effective and efficient manner is one of the
most highly prized skills of the 21st century. To support pupils in achieving this
goal, there is a need to understand the linguistic and cognitive prerequisites to text
generation and the ways in which the language pupils are learning and the educational contexts in which they find themselves impact on this process. When reading
the chapters in this book it is important toask:
1. Are the conclusions language specific or language general?
2. Do these concerns generalize to my cultural context?
3. In what ways, if any, can the identified processes, procedures, and frameworks transfer to pupils learning in the schools in my country?
4. What further information is needed to enhance the writing skills of pupils in
the context in which Iam working?
REFERENCES
Arf, B. (2012). Looking into the text generation box to find the psycholinguistic (cognitivelanguage) writing processes. In V. W. Berninger (Ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp. 575580). New York, NY:
Psychology Press/Taylor Francis Group.
Arf, B., Dockrell, J.E., & De Bernardi, B. (submitted). The structure of early written composition and its underpinnings in a shallow orthography. Submitted to Reading and
Writing.
shallow orthographies:Phonological, lexical and grammatical skills in learning to spell
Italian. In V. W.Berninger (Ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing
research to cognitive psychology (pp. 359387). NewYork, NY:Psychology Press/Taylor
Francis Group.
Bassett Berry, A., & Mason, L.H. (2012). The effects of self-regulated strategy development on
the writing of expository essays for adults with written expression difficulties:Preparing
for the GED. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 124136.
Berninger, V.W., & OMalley M. (2011). Evidence-based diagnosis and treatment for specific
learning disabilities involving impairments in written and/or oral language. Journal of
Berninger, V.W., & Swanson, L.H. (1994). Modifying Hayes and Flowers model of skilled writing to explain beginning and developing writing. Advances in Cognition and Educational
Practice, 2, 5781.
Berninger, V.W., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R., Begay, K., Byrd Coleman, K., Curtin, G.,...Graham,
Simple View of Writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 291304.
Berninger, V. W., Yates, C., Cartwright, A., Rutberg, J., Remy, E., & Abbott, R. (1992).
Lower-level developmental skills in beginning writing. Reading and Writing: An
Boscolo, P. (2012). Teacher-based approach to writing research. In V. W.Berninger (Ed.), Past,
present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp.
359387). NewYork, NY:Psychology Press/Taylor Francis Group.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
COST actionlearning to write effectively. http://www.cost-lwe.eu/ Accessed 5.4.12
Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary Grade Writing Instruction:ANational Survey. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 100, 907919. doi:10.1037/a0012656
Department of Education, England (2012). http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/inthenews/a00192403/key-stage-2-review-of-testing-assessment-and-accountability-go
vernment-response. Accessed 10.5.12.
Dockrell, J.E. (2009). Causes of delays and difficulties in writing development. In R. Beard,
D. Myhill, M. Nystrand, and J. Riley (Eds.) Sage Handbook of Writing Development pp.
489505. London:Sage.
Dockrell, J. E. and Lindsay, G. (2001). Children with specific speech and language difficultiesthe teachers perspective. Oxford Review of Education, 27(3), 369394.
Dockrell, J.E., Ricketts, J., & Lindsay, G. (2012). Understanding speech language and communication needsprofiles of need and provision. Better Communication Research Programme
(BCRP), Department for Education, England.
Enhancing Writing Skill in Children, (2012). http://psych.brookes.ac.uk/ewsc/ Accessed
October 5, 2012.
Eurydice (2002). Key competencies http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/thematic_studies_archives_en.php Accessed April 5, 2012.
Eurydice (2005). Key data on education in Europe 2005. http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/index_en.php Accessed April 5, 2012.
Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (1998). General educators instructional adaptation for students with
learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 2333.
Graham, S., Harris, K.R., Mason, L., Fink-Chorzempa, B., Moran, S., & Saddler, B. (2008).
How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting? A national survey. Reading and
Writing, 21(12), 4969. doi:10.1007/s11145-007-9064-z
Graham, S., Harris, K., & Hebert, M. A. (2011). Informing writing: The benefits of formative
assessment. A Carnegie Corporation Time to Act report. Washington, DC: Alliance for
Excellent Education.
Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2010). Learning to read, Evidence on how writing can improve reading. Report to the Carnegie trust. Washington, DC:Alliance for Excellent Education.
Graham, S., Morphy, P., Harris, K.R., Fink-Chorzempa, B., Saddler, B., Moran, S., & Mason,
L. (2008). Teaching spelling in the primary grades:Anational survey of instructional
practices and adaptations. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 796825.
doi:10.3102/0002831208319722
Kjellin, M.S., & Wennerstrm, K. (2006). Classroom activities and engagement for children
with reading and writing difficulties. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 21(2),
187200.
Korat O., & Schiff, R. (2005). Do children who read more books know what is good writing
better than children who read less? Acomparison between grade levels and SES groups.
Journal of Literacy Research, 37, 289324. doi:10.1207/s15548430jlr3703_
Machin, S. (2006). Social disadvantages and educational experiences. OECD Social,
Employment and Migration Working Papers No. 32.
Moni, K.B., Jobling, M.A., Van Kraayenoord, C.E., Elkins, J., Miller, R., & Koppenhaver, D.
(2007) Teachers knowledge, attitudes and the implementation of practices around the
teaching of writing in inclusive middle years classrooms:No quick fix. Educational &
Child Psychology, 24(3), 1836.
Morphy, P., & Graham, S. (2012) Title:Word processing programs and weaker writers/readers:a meta-analysis of research findings, Reading and Writing:an Interdisciplinary Journal,
25, 641678. doi:10.1007/s11145-010-9292-5
Nagy, W., Berninger, V.W., & Abbott, R.D. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle-school students. Journal of
Nunes, T., Bryant, P., & Bindman, M. (1997). Morphological spelling strategies:Developmental
stages and processes. Developmental Psychology, 33, 637649.
Pacton, S., & Fayol, M. (2003). How do French children use morphosyntactic information
when they spell adverbs and present participles? Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 273287.
Richards, T., Aylward, E., Field, K., Grimmie, A., Raskind, W., Richards, A.,...Berninger, V.W.
(2006). Converging evidence from Triple Word Form Theory in children with dyslexia.
Developmental Neuropsychology, 30, 547589.
Rogers, L., & Graham, S. (2008). A meta-analysis of single subject design writing intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 879906.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.4.879
Taft, R.J., & Mason, L.H. (2011). Examining effects of writing interventions:Highlighting
results for students with primary disabilities other than learning disabilities. Remedial
and Special Education, 32, 359370.
The National Commission on Writing in Americas Schools and Colleges (2003).

Writing:Apowerful message from State Government. http://www.writingcommission.
org/report/html
Van Kraayenoord, C.E., Moni, K.B., Jobling, M.A., Koppenhaver, D., & Elkins, J. (2004)
Developing the writing of middle school students with developmental disabilities: The writeideas model of writing. Literacy Learning: the Middle Years, 12(2),
3646.
Bridging Research and Practice

Conclusions
eachers and clinicians view writing as a complex process for the child, and
certainly one of the most complex challenges children with learning problems
face in school (Bereiter, 1980; Graham, 2008; Silliman, c hapter21, this volume).
This view derives from both everyday experiences and observation of writing
difficulties in children and adults and from the direct difficulties teachers and
speech-therapists have in teaching writing and writing skills. When oral language
problems are present, the development of writing skills is even a greater challenge
for the child, the teacher and for the researcher. As researchers our responsibility is
to help understand the causes of the writing problems, that is, how oral language
and written language interact in language development and in the writers mind.
This information is necessary to produce reliable and valid assessments of language
and writing and to drive intervention. In many countries, standardized measures
are still not available, and, thus, the need to discuss evidence-based assessment of
writing difficulties is even greater.
Most speech-therapists and specialist teachers would agree that we must aim to
integrate oral and written language into a new practice model. Silliman and Nelson
make this point explicitly in c hapter20 and chapter21, this volume. However, as
Boscolo emphasizes in chapter3 of this volume, our understanding of writing is
also informed from studies of cognitive processes. Cognitive models of writing
have increased our understanding of the production of written text significantly
and have inspired many instructional tools to improve the writing process (see
meta-analyses by Graham & Hebert, 2010; Graham & Perin, 2007; Graham &
Sandmel, 2011; Morphy & Graham, 2012). However, to date, these analyses have
not considered the role of oral language. As chapters in this book illustrate, writing
must also be examined as a language process and a form of linguistic expression
(Berman, chapter2, Danzak & Silliman, chapter12, Silliman, chapter21, this volume), and a communicative act that is shaped by the natural environments in which
it occurs (Danzak & Silliman, chapter12, Nelson, chapter20, and Dockrell & Arf,
chapter23, this volume). It is also necessary to understand the ways in which oral
and written language interact in natural contexts. Current cognitive writing models
do not address these issues (Arf, 2012).
When language processes are used as a lens to study writing it is necessary to
consider the language assessed (and its orthographic system). All the chapters in
this book demonstrate how this can contribute to our understanding of language
problems (see for example Bouton & Col, c hapter5, Levie etal., c hapter6, Arf
etal., chapter7, Snchal, chapter10, Danzak & Silliman, chapter12, Reilly etal.,
chapter13). Comparing writing problems across different language systems also
allows us to establish whether results in one language can be generalized to all
languages, languages with similar orthographic features, or are language specific.
This is especially important in our multilingual societies (see Danzak & Silliman,
chapter 12). In many cases, our clinical and educational practices are informed
from research on one language (English), without examining their applicability to
other language systems.
Chapters focusing on spelling demonstrate the role of different forms of linguistic representations (phonological, orthographic and also morphological). It has
already been established that morphological training can be effective in supporting
spelling in English speaking children with dyslexia (Berninger & Richards, 2010).
The appropriate timing and the nature of the interventions may vary across orthographies. The chapters in this book suggest that similar approaches should be tested
in other languages and for other populations (see Levie etal., chapter6 and Arf
etal., chapter7, Snchal, chapter10, this volume).
A further implication that is derived from the chapters in this book is the importance of considering written production at different levels (from word, to sentence
and text), when the goal is to capture the writers strengths and difficulties (see for
example Berman, Chapter2, Arf etal., c hapter7, Danzak & Silliman, c hapter12,
Reilly etal., c hapter13). The use of these complex assessments of the text at word,
sentence, and text level are sensitive to variation in writing across typically developing students and those with developmental difficulties (Mackie, Dockrell, &
Lindsay, 2013; Puranik, Lombardino, & Altmann, 2008)and as such allow us to
consider the ways in which language skills at word, sentence, and discourse level
interact in writing.
There is also evidence of the ways in which different genres of discourse (such
as narrative and expository) (e.g., Albertini et al., chapter 8, Davidi & Berman,
chapter11, and Danzak & Silliman, c hapter12), and the learning context and childrens motivation to write (Albertini etal., chapter8, Davidi & Berman, c hapter11,
Danzak & Silliman, chapter12) influence the writing product. Interventions need
to take into account the effort and frustration that language learning typically
entails for many children with oral language difficulties. As Correa, c hapter17, this
volume, and others (e.g., Boscolo, c hapter3, Albertini etal., c hapter8, Danzak &
Silliman, c hapter12, this volume) suggest, no language intervention for these children can produce significant changes if motivational factors are not incorporated
within it. The meaning that a writing activity has for a child is a crucial aspect of
B r i d g i n g R e s e a r c h a n d P r act i c e [ 3 3 7 ]
engagement in the writing task. The writing topic, the type of text, and the nature
of the writing task all play a role in writing quality. These factors need to be considered both in the assessment process and in interventions (Albertini etal., chapter8,
Danzak & Silliman, chapter12, and Silliman, chapter21).
Berman highlights the importance of examining different genres when we strive
to develop models of text production (chapter2, this volume). Although current
assessment practices assess writing skills, this is typically through narrative texts.
But as authors in this book (Davidi & Berman, chapter11; Silliman, chapter21,
this volume) stress, the importance of other types of written discourse should be
considered in assessments. Different genres imply different goals, styles of written
expression, different discourse organization and information density and, as such,
pose different challenges to the writer. Thus, the assessment of oral and written
language by different discourse genres allows the practitioner and researcher to
evaluate the childs ability to use language skills flexibly (Berman, chapter2, and
Silliman, c hapter21, this volume).
As Puranik et al. emphasize in their chapter (chapter 9, this volume), early
assessment and intervention are also important. The best intervention is the one
which supports writing skills taking into account the childs abilities. Assessing
early writing difficulties related to oral language development does not mean simply identifying risk factors for writing development, but in addition examining
emergent writing and early writing skills. To prevent writing problems teachers,
speech-language pathologists, and educators need to target those specific emergent, early writing skills, particularly for children at risk.
The chapters in this book raise other questions about the ways in which writing skills should be taught. Should writing instruction for children with oral language problems be different from that offered for typically developing children?
Should instruction on oral language be given to support their acquisition of written
language? Should writing instruction be implicit or explicit? Should intervention
address associated skills such as working memory? And should it focus on individual writing processes only or should it address to the task environment as well?
There are no simple answers to these questions and there have been many studies addressing and challenging the notion of special pedagogies. However, what
we have established is that children with oral language problems have difficulties
which impact on written text production in a range of different ways. For example,
children with hearing loss have poorer vocabulary and poorer phonemic awareness
skills than hearing children. According to some authors in this book (Hayes etal.,
chapter 4, this volume) there is, thus, a need for modification of instruction for
these children. However, there is other evidence that demonstrates that some writing strategies (e.g., in spelling) used by typically developing children and children
with dyslexia and deafness are similar in kind (see Hayes etal., chapter4, Levie
etal., chapter6, and Casalis, chapter15, this volume). For example, morphological knowledge of words supports the word spelling skills of children with hearing loss and dyslexia as in typically developing children. This would suggest that
interventions focused on morphological word structure will be effective in teaching

spelling skills for these children.
Oral language is an important component of writing instruction and chapters in
this book (e.g., Snchal, c hapter10 and Nelson, c hapter20), show that instruction
in oral language can support the learning of written language, but this is probably
most effective when the language skills in the two modalities are integrated in intervention (e.g., Snchal, c hapter10, this volume). Nelson in her chapter (chapter20,
this volume) demonstrates the way language intervention can be successfully
integrated into curriculum-based instruction of written expression. Graham and
colleagues have demonstrated the reciprocal relationship between writing interventions and reading (Graham & Hebert, 2010). Similarily, interventions for written language may also impact on oral language skills.
Explicit instruction for writing is also highlighted (e.g., Hayes etal., c hapter4;
Snchal, chapter10, this volume). The idea that explicit instruction is necessary
to scaffold the writing of children with language learning problems also underlies
most of current interventions in writing (Berry & Mason, 2012). Some suggest that,
for children with oral-language problems, incidental learning or implicit learning
can be less effective than for typically developing children, as the language learning mechanisms in these children are compromised (see for example, Hayes etal.,
chapter4, this volume). This is clearly an avenue for further research. For example
Ricketts and colleagues have shown how simple exposure to the orthographic features of words can support lexical acquisition (Ricketts, Bishop, & Nation, 2009).
We have yet to establish how these processes work in children with oral language
problems.
It is important not to ignore the role that incidental and implicit learning have in
writing instruction. For example, practicing writing skills at some versus other levels (e.g., training spelling versus text-generation skills), on some writing tasks only
(e.g., narrative or expository writing), and for some audiences only (the teacher)
significantly impacts on the childs incidental learning of writing skills. It may affect
the meaning that writing has for that child, the subjective experience (s)he has of
the writing activity (as frustrating or gratifying), the engagement in writing and,
finally, the development of his or her language and writing skills. Moreover, it is
possible that, by teaching writing skills, teachers and speech-therapists incidentally
train basic language-learning mechanisms such as executive functions and working
memory (e.g., Arf etal., c hapter7, this volume). Taking into consideration these
effects is important when designing writing instruction and activities (Palincsar &
Klenk, 1992).
Some of the contributions in this book also emphasize that clinical and instructional intervention must pay equal attention to scaffolding the individuals language
and writing processes and designing developmentally appropriate, authentic, and
meaningful learning activities and environments for the writing task. The idea that
intervention can focus on restructuring the context and not only the individuals
writing process is an important contribution to the field of some of the authors
of this book (Danzak & Silliman, chapter12; Nelson, chapter20, and Dockrell &
Arf, chapter 23, this volume). As Boscolo underlines in c hapter 3, this volume,
current writing instruction has been inspired by a cognitive approach to writing,
an approach that focuses on individual (cognitive) writing processes. However,
this approach cannot explain the intra-individual variability emerging in writing
engagement and performance when we assess writing by different writing tasks, in
different contexts, or with consideration of the socio-cultural values that writing
entails for a child (e.g., Danzak & Silliman, chapter12, this volume). All these factors will affect childrens response to writing instruction.
In conclusion, there is no simple and unequivocal answer to the question What
is best in intervention?, but this book and its authors suggest some interesting avenues for teachers and clinicians to address for writing problems. The study of writing problems is clearly an area in need of more systematic investigations(see Arf,
2012; Berninger etal., 2008; Dockrell, 2014; Katusic etal., 2009)and our hope is
that this book will also contribute to inspire further research in this field as well as
evidence-based assessment and instruction in practice.
REFERENCES
Arf, B. (2012). Looking into the text generation box to find the psycholinguistic
(cognitive-language) writing processes. In V. W.Berninger (Ed.), Past, present, and future
contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp. 573578). NewYork,
NY:Psychology Press/Taylor Francis Group.
Bereiter, C. (1980). Development in writing. In L. Gregg and E. R.Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive
processes in writing (pp. 7393). Hilldale, NJ:Erlbaum.
School Psychology, 46(1). doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.11.008
Berninger, V., & Richards, T. (2010). Inter-relationships among behavioral markers, genes,
brain, and treatment in dyslexia and dysgraphia. Future Neurology, 5, 597617.
doi:10.2217/fnl.10.22
Berry, A. B., & Mason, L. H. (2012). The effects of self-regulated strategy development
on the writing of expository essays for adults with written expression difficulties: Preparing for the GED. Remedial and Special Education, 33(2), 124136.
doi:10.1177/0741932510375469
Dockrell, J.E.(2014). Developmental variations in the production of written text:Challenges
for students who struggle with writing. In Stone, C., Silliman, E., Ehren, B., & Wallach,
G. (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy (2nd ed.) Guildford Publications.
Graham, S. (2008). Effective writing instruction for all students. Renaissance learning.
Retrieved from http://doc.renlearn.com/KMNet/R004250923GJCF33.pdf.
Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2010). Learning to read, Evidence on how writing can improve reading.
Washington DC:Carnegie Trust.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3). doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445
Graham, S., & Sandmel, K. (2011). The process writing approach:Ameta-analysis. Journal of
Educational Research, 104(6). doi:10.1080/00220671.2010.488703
Katusic, S.K., Colligan, R.C., Weaver, A.L., & Barbaresi, W.J. (2009). The forgotten learning
disability:Epidemiology of written-language disorder in a population-based birth cohort
(1976-1982), Rochester, Minnesota. Pediatrics, 123(5). doi:10.1542/peds.2008-2098
Mackie, C. J., Dockrell, J. E., & Lindsay, G. A. (2013). An evaluation of the written texts of
children with SLI: The contributions of oral language, reading and phonological
short-term memory. Reading and Writing:An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26(6), 865888.
doi:10.1007/s11145-012-9396-1
Morphy, P., & Graham, S. (2012). Word processing programs and weaker writers/readers: a meta-analysis of research findings. Reading and Writing, 25(3). doi:10.1007/
s11145-010-9292-5
Palincsar, A. S., & Klenk, L. (1992). Fostering Literacy Learning in Supportive Contexts.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(4), 211229.
Puranik, C. S., Lombardino, L. J., & Altmann, L. J. P. (2008). Assessing the microstructure
of written language using a retelling paradigm. American Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology, 17, 107120.
Ricketts, J., Bishop, D.V. M., & Nation, K. (2009). Orthographic facilitation in oral vocabulary acquisition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(10), 19481966.
doi:10.1080/17470210802696104
INDEX
f denotes figure; t denotes table

Abbott, A, 244
academic essays, composition of using
dictation and technology to
improvefluency, 100108, 103f, 105t,
106t
academic language proficiency, 302
ADHD (attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder), 205, 258, 260, 331
adverbial clauses (AV), 23, 182
African American English, 289
Alamargot, D., 87, 96
Alegria, J., 204
Allen, D.N., 87
Alouette test, 59, 206
alphabetic principle, 55, 291
Altmann, L.J., 321
American Sign Language (ASL),
102
analogy approach, 51
analogy effects, 204
analogy task, 133
analysis of variance (ANOVA), 89, 120, 207,
208, 209, 220, 296
anxiety disorder, 205
Apel, K., 291
Applebee, A.N., 288
Arabic language, 70
articulation disorders, 114
ASL (American Sign Language), 102
ASL-ASR condition, 103f
ASL condition, 108
ASR (automatic speech recognition), 100,
101
assessment
based on relationship between oral and
written language, 326
Batteria per la valutazione della scrittura e

della competenza ortografica nella scuola
dellobbligo (BVSCO), 262
British Picture Vocabulary Scale (BPVS),
59
context-based factors (in assessment of
learning difficulties), 332
Detailed Assessment of the Speed of
Handwriting (DASH), 316
difficulties with, by students with dyslexia,
188
dual-route model and, 319
evidence-based, 336, 340
function of in writing, 39
handwriting measures, 316
importance of common measurement for
integration of written language and oral
language disorders, 315316
importance of early assessment, 338
Kaufman Brief Intelligence Scale
(K-BIT-2), 118, 120
lack of, adapted for Italian context, 258
of multiple domains, benefits of, 169
pupil-based factors (in assessment of
as relying on cut-off points, 189
of spelling, 253
for students with dyslexia, 223
teacher-based approaches to, 327
through narrative texts, 338
TROG scores, 93, 95
variations in by states for ELLs, 159
Wechsler intelligence scales, 87
WJ-III, 119
Writing Assessment Summary and Goals
sheet, 282, 286f, 291
assessment (Cont.)
of writing in UK, 331
See also dynamic assessment
See also language assessment
See also story probes
See also tests
attention, as one of four resources at resource
level, 45
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD), 205, 258, 260, 331
atypical language development/learning,
158, 159
author notebooks, 275, 278t, 280, 294
authors chair activities, 275, 278t, 280
autistic spectrum difficulties, 331
automatic speech recognition (ASR), 100, 101
AV (adverbial clauses), 23, 182
avoidance strategies, 254
BACKDROP principles, 274
Baker, S., 267
Bakhtin, M.M., 33
Bar-Ilan, L., 22
Batteria per la valutazione della scrittura e
della competenza ortografica nella scuola
dellobbligo (BVSCO), 262
Beers, S., 303, 304, 307
Belec battery, 206
Benton Retention Test, 207
Bereiter, C., 35, 101
Berman, R.A., 19, 22, 306, 338
Bernard, A., xv
Berninger, V.W., 8, 36, 193, 196, 244, 253,
254, 257, 303, 304, 321
Berningers model of composing, 257
bilingual writing, 160, 161, 166t
Biser, E., 102
Bishop, D.V. M., 177
Boscolo, P., 108, 327, 336, 340
Boudreau, D., 113
bound morphology, 85, 91
Bourassa, D., 204
Brazil, prevalence of developmental dyslexia
in, 230
Brazilian children, with dyslexia, writing
development of, 228239, 236f, 237f,
238f
Brazilian Portuguese (BP)
linguistic features of, 229230
orthography, 231
[ 3 4 4 ] Index
British Picture Vocabulary Scale (BPVS), 59

Britton, J., 33
Bruck, M., 203
BRULEX database, 202
Bruner, J., 274, 294
BVSCO (Batteria per la valutazione della
scrittura e della competenza ortografica
nella scuola dellobbligo), 262
Cabell, R., 114, 122
Caeran, M., 260
Caravolas, M., 214
Carlisle, J.F., 139
Carpenter, P.A., 6
Catts, H.W., 113
Cavalier, A.R., 101
CCSS (Common Core State Standards
Initiative), 123, 307
CCSSO (Council of Chief State School
Officers), 123, 307
CDR (clause density ratio), 165, 166t, 167,
168
CELF-R, 178
Chanquoy, L., 36, 39
Chenoweth, N., 5, 6, 7
Chenu, F., 317
CHILDES programs, 17, 18, 21, 317
Christianakis, M., 37
CI (cochlear implants)
See cochlear implants (CI)
Clarkson, B., 177
clausal complexity, 161, 165167
clause (as unit of analysis), 17, 19
clause-combining, 20, 23, 24, 148
clause-combining complex syntax, 147, 148
clause density ratio (CDR), 165, 166t, 167, 168
clause-internal syntax, 153
clause package (CP), 17, 20, 23, 2425, 146,
147148, 152
Cleary, M., 87
CM (complement), 23
CO (coordinate clause), 23, 25, 182
cochlear implants (CI)
acquisition of spelling in French children
with, 5557
characteristics of children with, 60t
chronological age, reading age, and
non-verbal IQ level of children with
compared to normal hearing children,
61t
scores of children with, in French

research, 63t
spelling skills in children with, 4552,
5768, 65t
cognitive processes, 313, 24, 25, 33, 38, 86,
100, 152, 188, 192, 234, 239, 258, 275,
316, 336
Cohens d effect sizes, 296
Cohens kappa, 119
Common Core State Standards Initiative
(CCSS), 123, 307
common measurement, importance of for
complement (CM), 23
complex syntax, 25, 144, 146, 147, 165, 178,
181, 182183, 185
composing
Berningers model of, 257
Hayes-Flower model of, 100, 257
computer software supports, 274, 275,
279280
Connelly, V., 8, 177, 193
Conrad, N., 204
consonant clusters, 203, 216, 217, 219, 220,
222, 223, 229, 231, 236, 237
context-based factors (in assessment of
contextual effects, 62, 64, 65f, 66
contextual influence, 216, 219, 222
coordinate clause (CO), 23, 25, 182
Cornoldi, C., 259, 260
Correa, J., 326, 336
COST action on learning to write effectively,
326, 327, 328
COST sociolinguistic report, 328b
Council of Chief State School Officers
(CCSSO), 123, 307
CP (clause package), 17, 20, 23, 2425, 146,
147148, 152
cross linguistic research integration, 318319
cued speech, 12, 58, 66
Czech language, 70, 214
Daneman, M., 6
Danish language, 71
Danzak, R.L., 160, 161, 332
DASH (Detailed Assessment of the Speed of
Handwriting), 316
Davidi, O., 306
DCD (developmental co-ordination

disorder), 194
Deacon, S.H., 204
deaf, application of framework for cognitive
processes in writing to persons who
are, 12
deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) students,
101
deafness
cases of in France, 55
impact of onset of on working-memory
system, 12, 58
overlapping definition with hearing loss
and hearing impairment, 314315
deep orthographies, 57, 71, 228, 328, 329
definitions, importance of clear ones for
Defior, S., 215, 223
De La Paz, S., 8
Detailed Assessment of the Speed of
Handwriting (DASH), 316
developmental co-ordination disorder
(DCD), 194
developmental dyslexia
definition, 201
DSM-IV criteria for, 205
prevalence of in Brazil, 230
DHH (deaf and hard-of-hearing) students,
101
dictation
Hebrew Spelling Task (HST), 74
use of in composition of academic essays,
100108, 103f, 105t, 106t
word dictation test, 6162
digital writing tablets, 195, 317, 320
Digit Span, 86, 87, 88t, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97
digraphs, 62, 63t, 64, 65, 65f, 66, 216, 219,
220, 222, 223, 236, 237
discourse level analysis, 282, 288
discourse stance, 25, 26, 27
discursive abilities, 144, 152
distributional counts, 26
DJUR word-decoding test, 246
Dockrell, J.E., 177, 245
Dromi, E., 73, 80
DSM-IV, 205
DSM-IV-R, 217
dual-route model, 56, 202, 319
Dutch language, 18, 70, 71, 73, 74
Index[345]
dynamic assessment, 39, 273, 274, 275, 276t,

280, 293294, 298
The Dynamics of Perception and Production
during Text Writing, 245
dysgraphia, 331
dyslexia
definition, 189190, 216
diagnostic criteria in DSM-IV-R, 217
as label, 331
review of, in English, 188196
writing development of Brazilian children
with, 228239, 236f, 237f, 238f
written spelling in French children with,
201211, 208t, 210t
written spelling in Spanish-speaking
children with, 214224, 218t, 221t
Dyson, A.H., 37
early auditory deprivation, effects of, 8687
chelle de Vocabulaire en images Peabody
(EVIP), 59, 134
educational standards, 302, 307308, 309
See also Common Core State Standards
Initiative (CCSS)
Ehren, B.J., 309
elaborated noun phrases (ENPs), 163165,
166, 167, 168, 169, 305, 306
Elbow, P., 101
elision, 18, 49
ELLs (English Language Learners), 158
ELLS with Language Learning disabilities
(ELL-LLD), 159
English Acquisition Act (US), 159
English language
African American English, 289
Californian English, 17
as compared to Spanish, Czech, and
Slovak, 214
conventions for writing compounds in, 18
as having rich auxiliary verb systems, 24
as less transparent orthography, 70
Modern English, 177
modifiers preceding head noun, 19
as more opaque, 130
orthography of, 131
phrasal verbs, 17
plain English, 23
spelling system, 46, 47, 51, 320
as structurally distinct language, 21
as verb-satellite language, 24
writing system, 46
[ 3 4 6 ] Index
English Language Learners (ELLs), 158

English national curriculum, 331
English-speaking children
with language impairment, written
narratives from, 176185, 179t, 180t,
181t, 182t, 183t, 184t, 185t
writing profile of children with dyslexia,
190
ENPs (elaborated noun phrases), 163165,
166, 167, 168, 169, 305, 306
ET (eye-tracking) equipment, 247, 317
European pedagogy, 326, 327
European Research Network on Learning to
Write Effectively, 318
evaluator, as one of four cognitive processes,
6, 7
EVIP (chelle de Vocabulaire en images
Peabody), 59, 134
executive control, 4, 86, 87
executive function, 4, 5, 11, 97, 158, 169,
233, 234, 245, 248, 254, 330, 339
explicit instruction, 47, 51, 52, 116, 233, 294,
304, 307, 339
expressive writing
different measurements of, 315
improvement of in children with learning
disabilities, 257267, 262t, 263t, 264t,
266t
review of, in English for students who
have dyslexia, 188196
in Swedish adolescents with reading and
writing difficulties, 244255, 248t,
249t, 250t, 251t
eye-tracking (ET) equipment, 247, 317
Facebook, 8
Faigley, L., 100
FARL (free and reduced lunch), 115, 120
Fayol, M., 132, 203, 204, 317
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, 228,
232
Feuerstein, R., 274, 293
Finnish language, 70, 71, 130, 131
fixed-topic strategy, 9, 10f, 11
flexibility, of the writing mechanism, 3638
flexible-focus strategy, 9, 10f, 11
Flower, L.S., 6, 275
focused attention, 4
framework for cognitive processes in writing
application of to clinical populations,
1113
control level, 911

future developments, 13
integrating levels of, 11
overview, 34, 5f
process level, 67
resource level, 46
task environment, 79
France
cases of CI in, 55
criterion for dyslexia, 201
free and reduced lunch (FARL), 115, 120
free morphology, 85, 91, 92, 97
French language/orthography, 70, 131133,
202203, 204, 207, 208, 211
French Sign Language (LSF), 59
French-speaking children
with dyslexia, written spelling in,
201211, 208t, 210t
with language impairment, written
narratives from, 176185, 179t, 180t,
181t, 182t, 183t, 184t, 185t
morphological awareness and spelling
difficulties in, 130139, 131t, 135t,
138t
frequency effects, 204
fronting, 114
Gallaudet University, 50
Games-Howell, 120
GC (Grammatic Completion) subtest, 119,
121
Gee, D., 8
Geers, A.E., 49
genre distinctiveness, 25
genre rigidity, 36
Gentry, J.R., 291
German language, 18, 24, 25, 70, 204, 228
Gillam, R.B., 177
Gillis, S., 73, 74, 76
Glenn, C.G., 288
global revision schema, 11
Goelman, H., 101
Goswami, U., 320
Goulandris, N., 216
Graham, S., 8, 38, 255, 301, 321, 329, 339
grammar, effect of poor spelling on in
children with dyslexia, 192193
grammatical agreement, 85
grammatical knowledge, 190, 304
Grammatic Completion (GC) subtest, 119,
121
graphemes
definition, 55
simple graphemes, 62, 63, 64, 65
grapheme-to-phoneme correspondence
(GPC), 56, 202, 203, 206, 208, 210,
214, 231
graphics tablets, 317
grapho-phonemic relationship, 71
graphotactic knowledge, 203204, 205
graphotactics, 46, 47, 51, 132
Greek language, 70, 71
Gregg, N., 258
guided error analysis, 51
handwriting
and ASR, 101
of children with SI, 122
as constraining text generation, 319
as intimately linked to language, 320
measures of, 316
and writing difficulties in children with
dyslexia, 193195
See also transcription
Harris, M., 50, 255
Hayes, J.R., 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1011, 48, 49, 50,
57, 66, 275, 303, 304
Hayes-Flower model of composing, 100, 257
hearing loss (HL)
and development of spelling skills, 49
influence of verbal working memory in
children with, 8597
spelling abilities in Hebrew-speaking
children with, 7082
Hebrew language
conventions for writing compounds
in, 18
expressing distanced, impersonal stance in
expository essays, 25
modifiers, 19
morphology, 72, 73, 81
orthography, 71, 72, 73
phono-morpho-orthography, 79
spelling, 72, 81
See also Hebrew-speaking children
Hebrew-speaking children
with hearing loss, spelling abilities in,
7081, 75t, 76t, 77f, 78t, 79t, 80t
with/without language/learning
impairment, writing abilities of,
143153, 148t, 149t
Index[347]
Hebrew Spelling Task (HST), 7475, 76,

77t, 78, 80
Hedberg, N., 113, 288
HL (hearing loss)
See hearing loss (HL)
homophony, 56, 70, 72, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79,
80, 81, 132
Hunt, K.W., 288
Hyn, J., 6
ICD-10, 258
Icelandic language, 25
idea generation, 196, 258, 260
implicit learning, 339
incidental learning, 47, 339
inclusive instructional practices, 274,
279280
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), 159
Indonesian language, 70
inferential thinking problems, 13
inflexional morphology, 193
informational discourse, 302306,
308, 309
informational genre development, 303
informative text
clauses in, 19
requirements of, 26
restructuring of by pre-adolescents with/
without language/learning impairment,
143153, 148t, 149t
integration, of written language disorders
with oral language disorders, 313322
interclausal relations, 20, 25, 151
interclausal syntactic complexity,
150151
International Dyslexia Association, 201
interquartile range (IQR) scores,
6263, 64
interventions
accurate targeting of, 331
addressed to developing verbal working
memory in children with HL, 97
based on relationship between oral and
written language, 326
for childrens literacy difficulties, 232235,
239
clinical and instructional, 339
to develop writing skills, 228
dual-route model and, 319
effect of on linguistic revision, 260
[ 3 4 8 ] Index
factors to be considered in, 338

focused on morphological word structure,
339
focus on early intervention, 124
guidance for design of, 136
importance of culturally relevancy and
personal meaning in, 169
integrating language assessment,
instruction, and intervention in
inclusive writing lab approach,
273298
integration in, 339
lack of, adapted for Italian context, 258
reciprocal relationship between writing
interventions and reading, 339
in Spanish, 223
in spelling for children with dyslexia,
192
to support spelling, impact on written
expression, 195
to support writing in schools, 329330
teacher-based approaches to, 327
See also language intervention
inventive spelling, 51
Io scrivo (I write) program, 260262
IQR (interquartile range) scores,
6263, 64
IQ tests/scores, 34, 189, 205, 258, 262
irregular spelling, homophony as source of,
70
Italy, program to increase expressive writing
competence in children with learning
difficulties, 260
Jacobs, A.M., 202
Jimnez-Fernndez, G., 215
Jisa, H., 317
Johansson, A., 245, 315
Johansson, R., 245, 315
Johnston, J., 177
judgment of string similarity, 207, 210
Justice, L., 114
juxtaposed main clause (MCJ), 23
Kaakinen, J.H., 6
Kandel, S., 195, 196, 320
Kaufer, D.S., 6, 8
Kaufman Brief Intelligence Scale (K-BIT-2),
118, 120
Kearnan, K., 130, 134
Keenan, S., 102
Kemtes, K.A., 87
Kessler, B., 48
keystroke logging, 246, 317
kindergarteners, comparative analysis
of, with speech and oral language
impairments and their typically
developing peers, 112124, 120t, 121t
Korean language, 71
labels, diagnostic, xix, 143, 314, 331
language assessment, integrating language
assessment, instruction, and
intervention in inclusive writing lab
approach, 273298, 276t278t, 279f,
281f, 287t288t, 290t, 292f, 293t,
295t
language impairment (LI), 12, 20, 22, 112,
113114, 120, 122, 124, 143, 176186,
189, 193, 201, 205, 315, 331
language intervention
integrating language assessment,
instruction, and intervention in
inclusive writing lab approach,
273298, 276t278t, 279f, 281f,
287t288t, 290t, 292f, 293t, 295t
integration of into instruction, 339
and motivational factors, 337
specialists in, 298
See also interventions
language learning disabilities (LLD), 1213,
143, 158, 159, 301
language-learning environment, 12,
327332
language/learning impairment (LLI), 26,
143, 145, 152
languages
cross linguistic research integration,
318319
differences in consistency between
reading and spelling, 214
differences in transparency of, 328329
difficulties in spelling inconsistent
conventions of writing systems, 231
impact of spelling problems of different
written languages on children with
dyslexia, 196
stress-timed, 230
syllable-timed, 230
verb-framed languages, 24
verb-satellite languages, 24
See also specific languages
language typology, 17, 24, 26, 71

Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education
Center (Clerc Center) (Gallaudet
University), 5051
learning disabilities (LD)
ASR with students with, 101
improving expressive writing in children
with, 257267, 262t, 263t, 264t, 266t
research on informational writing and
students with, 303
self-regulated strategy development and,
330
See also language learning disabilities
(LLD)
Leonard, L.B., 73
Lervg, A., 214
Lt, B., 203, 204, 317
letter knowledge, 194
Levin, I., 73
lexical density, 21, 163165, 167, 307
lexical diversity, 21, 26, 192, 193, 247, 249,
250, 252, 253, 254, 315
lexical orthographic knowledge, 204, 205
lexical procedure, 202, 208
lexical signaling, 307
lexical-syntactic density, 304306
lexical usage, 2125
lexicon, 17, 22, 23, 24, 56, 72, 73, 81, 153,
165, 329
Leybaert, J., 58, 66
LI (language impairment), 12, 20, 22, 112,
113114, 120, 122, 124, 143, 176186,
189, 193, 201, 205, 315, 331
Lindsay, G., 177
linguistic literacy, 16, 143, 302
linguistic perspectives on writing
development
background and purpose, 1617
communicative appropriateness, 25
diagnostics of developing written text
construction, 2025
syntactic measures, 2325
units of analysis, 1720
word-based measures, 2023
linguistic register, 21, 22, 26
linguistic skills, 85, 97, 152, 233, 234
LIRIPAC, University of Padova, 258
LLD (language learning disabilities), 1213,
143, 158, 159, 301
LLI (language/learning impairment), 26,
143, 145, 152
Index[349]
local revision schema, 11

Lombardino, L.J., 321
long-term memory, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 136, 216,
257, 258
Lonigan, C., 114, 122
Lorch, R.F., 6
LSF (French Sign Language), 59
Macarthur, C.A., 101
Mackie, C., 177
Maggio, S., 317
main clause (MC), 23
Malani, M.D., 309
MANCOVA, 92
Mann-Whitney U tests, 147, 248
Manulex-infra database, 202
Martinet, C., 204
Mason, L., 108, 255
Masterson, J.J., 291
Matrices subtest, 119, 120
Matthew Effect, 124
McGinity, A., 114
MCJ (juxtaposed main clause), 23
mean clause length (MCL), 23
mean length of T-unit (MLTU), 165, 167,
168, 289, 293, 295, 297
mechanism, as metaphor for cognitive
approach to writing, 3435, 39, 40
mediational scaffolding, 294
mental graphemic representations, 291
meta-analyses, 130, 303, 329, 336
metacognitive abilities, 239, 258, 259, 267
minilessons, 275, 276t, 277t, 279, 280, 281f,
291, 292, 294, 297
mixed-methods designs, 160, 161, 167, 169
Modern English, 177
morphemic knowledge, 291
morphological awareness
definition, 130
as predictor of spelling abilities, 205
and spelling difficulties in Frenchspeaking children, 130139, 131t, 135t,
138t
and written spelling in French children
with dyslexia, 207, 209, 210211
morphological knowledge, 46, 71, 132,
136, 138, 139, 158, 204, 211, 291,
292, 338
morphological representations, 57, 73, 90
morphological skills, 73, 85
[ 3 5 0 ] Index
morphology, 47, 51, 71, 72, 132, 177,

181182, 329
See also bound morphology
See also free morphology
See also inflexional morphology
morpho-orthographic representations, 79
morpho-phonology, 81
morphosyntax, 81, 161, 167, 168, 291
Most, T., 73
motivation/motivational factors, 39, 233,
234, 337
Mousty, P., 204
movement difficulties, in children with
dyslexia, 194
Muraza, K.A., 309
Nagy, W., 303, 304, 307
Naipaul, V.S., xvii
National Commission on Writing, 325
National Consensus Conference, 264
National Governors Association (NGA),
123, 307
National Reading Panel, 47
National Technical Institute for the Deaf,
45, 49
Nelson, N.W., 326, 336, 339
nested construction/nested dependencies,
147, 151, 306
neuro-scientific research, and study of
writing, 36
Nielsen, K., 244
Nippold, M.A., 307
nominal abstractness, 21
non-lexical procedure, 202
nonword repetition, 49
normally hearing (NH), 57
noun phrases (NP), 18, 23, 24, 25
See also elaborated noun phrases (ENPs)
NP complexity, 23, 24
Nunes, T., 133, 136, 139
opacity
degree of in spelling as compared to
reading, 215
in phonology-orthography link, 70
opacity-transparency continuum, 56, 214
opaque orthographies, 177, 228
opaque phonology-orthography relations, 71
Open Court curriculum, 116
oral language
integration of with written language into a

new practice model, 301309
role of in developing written language
skills, 325332
oral language disorder research, 321
oral language disorders, integration of with
written language disorders, 313322
orthographic consistency, 58, 214, 216, 222,
223
orthographic knowledge/procedure, 55, 56,
57, 58, 62, 64, 66, 177, 191, 202, 204,
205, 215, 291, 328
orthographic processing, 58, 66
orthographic representations, 56, 66, 71, 73,
130, 136, 216, 329
orthographic transparency, 202, 328329
PA (phonological awareness), 51, 93, 97,
116, 133, 139, 149, 205, 209, 210, 217,
230, 232, 234, 235
Pacton, S., 132, 203, 204
participation, as metaphor for socio-cultural
approach to writing, 3435, 36, 39
pause locations, 253, 254, 318
peer conferencing, 277t
Peereman, R., 204
PEREL test, 218
Perl, S., 101
Perruchet, P., 132, 203, 204
personal minilessons, 275, 280, 281f, 291,
292, 294, 297
phoneme-grapheme relationship, 70
phonemes, definition, 55
phoneme-to-grapheme (PG), 202, 203
phoneme-to-grapheme correspondence
(PGC), 55, 56, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66,
203, 206, 214, 215, 216, 230
phonemic awareness, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 66,
89, 93t, 230, 291, 338
phonemic segmentation abilities, 223
phonological awareness (PA), 51, 93, 97,
116, 133, 139, 149, 205, 209, 210, 217,
230, 232, 234, 235
phonological disorders, 114
phonological knowledge, 223
phonologically implausible (PI), 90, 92, 95t,
96, 185, 231
phonologically plausible (PP), 46, 47, 48, 49,
57, 90, 95t, 185, 203, 231
phonological memory, 96, 115, 202
phonological procedure, 56, 58, 61, 6364,

203
phonological processing, 57, 65, 66, 123,
216, 217, 222, 223, 230, 232
phonological representations, 55, 57, 73,
115, 124, 202
phonological skills, 50, 56, 85, 191, 203, 204,
210, 223, 232
phonological transparency, 130
phonological variations, 71
phonology, 12, 4647, 49, 57, 7071, 72, 73,
79, 81, 90, 134, 190, 314, 318
phonology-orthography link/interface,
7071
phrase (as unit of analysis), 17, 1819
phrase-based measures, 23
physical task environment, 8
See also task environment
PI (phonologically implausible), 90, 92, 95t,
96, 185, 231
Picture Vocabulary subtest, 119
Pisoni, D., 87
planner, 6, 9
Portuguese language, 71, 228, 229, 230, 231,
233, 234, 235, 236, 320
position influence, 216, 219, 221, 223
PP (phonologically plausible), 46, 47, 48, 49,
57, 90, 95t, 185, 203, 231
pre-adolescents, writing abilities of,
143153, 148t, 149t
prepositional phrases (PP), 18, 22, 23, 24
procedural facilitation, 35, 36, 260,
262, 267
process pedagogy approach, 101
PROLEC-SE, 217
PROLEC standardized subtest, 217
proposer, 6, 9
propositions, compared to phrases, 19
protocol studies, 6
pseudoword deficit, 202
pseudoword processing, 56
pseudoword reading, 206, 215, 217
pseudowords, 56, 118, 202, 203, 206, 207
pseudoword spellings, 204, 207, 208, 209,
210211
pupil-based factors (in assessment of
Puranik, C, 113, 122, 193, 307, 321, 338
quality of interclausal relations, 25
Index[351]
RAN task, 194

rapid naming, 190, 205, 209, 210, 230
RAVEN test, 217
Ravid, D., 73, 74, 76
RC (relative), 23
Re, A.M., 260
reading
dyslexia, 190191
as written language skill, 4, 6
reading and writing difficulties, as alternate
term for dyslexia, 244
reconstruction, 144, 145, 151, 152, 153
regression analyses, 93, 94t, 95t, 96, 209,
210
regularity effects, 204
Reilly, J.S., 304
relative (RC), 23
re-reading, 8, 9, 190, 259
revision
as basic tool, 36
Chanquoy on, 39
effects of a training focused on, 257267,
262t, 263t, 264t, 266t
executive functions as linked to, 330
teaching of, 102
use of writing scheme concept to analyze, 10
revision process, 39, 259260
revision types, 253, 254
Ricketts, J., 339
Rimmer, W., 27
Romance languages, 24, 177
Rose report, 189
Russian language, 19
Saddler, B., 255
SALT (Systematic Analysis of Language
Transcripts), 289290
Sarsour, M., 73
scaffolding, 152, 260, 273, 274, 275,
276t277t, 280, 292, 294, 297, 330,
339
Scardamalia, M., 35, 101
Scheffe, 120
Schmitz, K., 102
Scott, C.M., 177, 309
ScriptLog, 246, 247
selective language impairment, application
of framework for cognitive processes in
writing to persons who have, 1213
[ 3 5 2 ] Index
self-esteem, 233, 234, 239

Snchal, M., 130, 131, 133, 134, 136
Sentence Imitation (SI) subtest, 119
sentence level analysis, 288289
sentences, compared to phrases, 19
shallow orthographies, 56, 228, 329
Share, D.L., 56, 208
SHEMA, 74
Shteiman, M., 73
SI (speech impairments), 112, 114115
Silliman, E.R., 332, 336
simple-clause syntax, 151
simple graphemes, 62, 63, 64, 65, 65f
sketchy planning, 258, 260
SLI (specific language impairment), 189,
205, 315, 331
Slobin, D.I., 19
Slovak language, 214
SLPs (speech-language pathologists), 124,
161, 169, 273, 274, 275, 280, 294, 296,
297, 298, 302, 308, 309, 338
SN (special needs), 273, 280, 298, 307
social media, 8
social task environment, 7
See also task environment
socio-linguistic diversity, 289
sound-to-spelling correspondences, 58
Spanish-English bilingual students, with
language learning disabilities, writing
development of, 158169, 164t, 166t
Spanish language/orthographic code, 70,
214, 216, 217, 223
Spanish-speaking children, with dyslexia,
written spelling in, 214224, 218t, 221t
Spanish-speaking ELLs, 159
Spearmans Rank Correlation test, 248
special needs (SN), 273, 280, 298, 307
specific language impairment (SLI), 189,
205, 315, 331
speech impairments (SI), 112, 114115
speech-language pathologists (SLPs), 124,
161, 169, 273, 274, 275, 280, 294, 296,
297, 298, 302, 308, 309, 338
speech problems, application of framework
for cognitive processes in writing to
persons who have, 12
speech recognition technology (automatic
speech recognition) (ASR), 101
speech-sound disorder, 12
spell-checkers, 255, 279, 280
spelling
abilities in Hebrew-speaking children with
hearing loss, 7082, 75t, 76t, 77f, 78t,
79t, 80t
in children and adolescents with cochlear
implants, 4552
as constraining text generation, 319
English compared to French, 184185
English spelling system, 46
examining early spelling and writing skills,
112124, 120t, 121t
as intimately linked to language, 320
phonological strategy in, 203
predictors, 205
in typically developing hearing children
and adolescents, 4647
dyslexia, 191
written spelling in French children with
dyslexia, 201211, 208t, 210t
written spelling in Spanish-speaking children
with dyslexia, 214224, 218t, 221t
spelling acquisition
in different languages, 70, 71
in French children with cochlear implants,
5567
homophony as challenge to, 72
spelling assessment, 253
spelling difficulties, in French-speaking
children, 130139, 131t, 135t, 138t
spelling interventions, for children with
dyslexia, 192, 195
spelling skills
in children with cochlear implants, 49,
5759, 64, 66, 67
in children with hearing loss, 9091
developmental models of, 56
as embedded in English national
curriculum, 331
link with morphological knowledge, 136,
330, 338339
link with phonological processing deficits,
216
as markers of literacy attainment, 45
as not taught systematically in Israel, 331
questions about what they really are and
how they can be measured, 253
Spanish-speaking children as acquiring
reading skills earlier than, 215
and speech problems, 12
spelling-to-sound correspondences, 177

SPM scale (of RAVEN test), 217
Sprenger-Charolles, L., 204
stacked construction/stacking dependencies,
147, 151, 306
stanine (STAndard NINE-grade scale), 246
Stein, N., 288
Sterling, C., 193
Stone, C.A., 139
Stone, G.O., 202
story maturity, 288
story-probe analysis, 282
story probes, 273, 282, 291293, 294298
See also written story probes
stress-timed languages, 230
string similarity judgment, 207, 210
Stroop task, 4
Swanson, H.L., 196
Swedish children, with reading and writing
difficulties, expressive writing in,
244255, 248t, 249t, 250t, 251t
Swedish language
conventions for writing compounds in, 18
keystroke-logged essays in, 194
proportion of words from Latinate
compared with native Germanic origin,
22
research in showing link between spelling
and vocabulary choice, 192
use of generic pronouns, 25
syllabic phonological awareness, 235
syllable-timed languages, 230
syntactic awareness, 304
syntactic complexity, 19, 24, 27, 150151,
163, 168, 247, 249, 252, 303
syntactic density, 23, 26, 146, 151, 165167,
168, 302, 304305
syntactic packaging, 20, 25
syntax, 12, 17, 20, 24, 329
See also clause-internal syntax
See also complex syntax
See also morphosyntax
See also simple-clause syntax
syntax gap, 307
Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts
(SALT), 289290
talk-write model, 101
task environment, 3, 4, 6, 79, 11, 320321, 338
Index[353]
task initiator, 9, 11
TD (typically developing) students, 113,
144, 178
teacher-based approaches, to assessment and
intervention, 327
teacher conferencing, 275, 278t
teachers, role of in supporting pupils writing
skills, 329
Terleksti, E., 50
Terminable unit (T-unit divisions), 161, 165,
172, 247, 288, 289, 295, 306
See also mean length of T-unit (MLTU)
terminology, importance of for integration
of written language and oral language
disorders, 314316
Test of Language DevelopmentPrimary:Third Edition (TOLD-P:3),
119
tests
Alouette test, 59, 206
Benton Retention Test, 207
DJUR word-decoding test, 246
Grammatic Completion (GC) subtest,
119, 121
IQ tests/scores, 34, 189, 205, 258,
262
Mann-Whitney U tests, 147, 248
Matrices subtest, 119, 120
PEREL test, 218
Picture Vocabulary subtest, 119
PROLEC-SE, 217
PROLEC standardized subtest, 217
RAVEN test, 217
Sentence Imitation (SI) subtest, 119
Spearmans Rank Correlation test, 248
SPM scale (of RAVEN test), 217
Test of Language DevelopmentPrimary:Third Edition (TOLD-P:3),
119
Verbal Knowledge subtest, 119, 120
word dictation test, 6162
text construction, 17, 2025, 26, 27, 143,
144, 147
text generation, 87, 89, 91, 92, 96, 97, 123,
144, 231, 232, 239, 245, 316, 319, 330,
332, 339
text length, 20, 144, 151, 192, 247
text organization, 146, 161, 169, 302304,
307
text planning, 122, 258, 260
[ 3 5 4 ] Index
text production, 36, 85, 86, 89, 144, 195,

244, 246, 247, 250, 255, 258, 316, 317,
329, 330, 331, 338
textual connectivity, 24, 146, 151, 307
thematic quality/thematic content, 16, 21,
27, 144, 146, 147, 148150, 152
thinking for writing, 25, 26
think-write model, 101
TL (typical language), 273
TOLD-P:3 (Test of Language DevelopmentPrimary:Third Edition), 119
topic development, 302, 303304
topic-elaboration strategy, 910, 10f
transcriber, 6, 7, 9
transcription, 7, 8, 12, 17, 35, 85, 87, 96, 122,
192, 194, 231, 238, 254, 257, 259, 260,
304
transcription errors, 103, 104, 105,
106, 107
transcription skills, 115, 122, 196, 245, 248,
329, 330
transcription technology, 8
translations, 102
translator, 67, 9
transparent orthographies, 70, 130, 131, 202,
214, 228, 230, 234, 329
transposition, 4849, 56, 258
Treiman, R., 48, 203, 204
TROG, 93, 95
T-unit divisions (Terminable unit), 161, 165,
172, 247, 288, 289, 295, 306
See also mean length of T-unit (MLTU)
Turkish language, 19
typical language (TL), 273
typically developing (TD) students, 113,
144, 178
underivable, 62, 64, 65f, 66
United Kingdom
definitions of dyslexia, 189
Harris and Terleksti study of teenagers
in, 50
writing assessment, 331
Universidade Federal de Rio de Janeiro, 228,
232
utterances, compared to phrases, 19
Valdois, S., 204
Verbal Knowledge subtest, 119, 120
verbal productivity, 144, 146
verbal working memory, influence of on

writing skills in children with hearing
loss, 8597, 88t, 92t, 93t, 94t, 95t
verb-framed languages, 24
verb phrases (VP), 18, 23, 24
verb-satellite languages, 24
video drafts, 102
vocabulary
appropriateness, 22
of children with hearing loss, 338
effect of poor spelling on in children with
dyslexia, 192193
impact of writing lab approach on, 290
importance of for literacy development,
20
limited as related to reading
difficulties, 50
and morphological awareness, 135
reading as developing complex vocabulary,
190
VOCD (Vocabulary Diversity), 21, 246
VP (verb phrases), 18, 23, 24
Vygotsky, L.S., 33, 39, 274
Wallace, D., 1011
Walsh, E., 8
Weaver, C., 289
Wechsler intelligence scales, 87
Wechslers Digit Span, 87
See also Digit Span
Wengelin, A., 244, 245, 253, 315
Westby, C.E., 288
Windsor, J., 177, 309
WISC, 205
WISC-R Digit Span, 89
Woodcock Johnson, Third Edition (WJ-III),
119
word (as unit of analysis), 17, 18
word attack, 49
word-based measures, 20
word frequency, 22, 219, 247, 317
word length, as criteria of lexical usage, 21
word level analysis, 289290
working memory (WM), 4, 56, 7, 11, 12,
35, 96, 97, 101, 151, 158, 196, 210, 230,
234, 245, 257, 258, 338, 339
See also verbal working memory
writing
as academic and cross-disciplinary ability,
33
cognitive approach to, 3334, 35, 36, 38,

39
as communication tool, 33, 34
differentiated teaching strategies
for, 330
examining early spelling and writing skills,
112124, 120t, 121t
socio-cultural approach to, 3334, 35,
3738, 39, 40
support of in school, 329330
transactional function of, 33
usability of, 36
Writing Across the Borders Conference, 38
Writing Assessment Summary and Goals
sheet, 282, 286f, 291
writing convention analysis, 291
writing development, of Spanish-English
bilingual students with language
learning disabilities, 158169, 164t,
166t
writing environment, 38, 326327
writing instruction
aim of for students with reading and
writing difficulties, 254
benefits of study of, 322
for children with oral language problems,
338
developmental model of, 196
evidence-based recommendations for, 38
flexibility in approach and monitoring
progress as essential components of,
331
inspiration for current strategies, 340
integrating of with writing development,
321
oral language as important component
of, 339
preparing teachers to support, 329
role of incidental and implicit learning
in, 339
and spell-checkers, 255
studies on as rare, 160
variations in, 332
writing lab approach, integrating language
assessment, instruction, and
intervention in, 273298, 276t278t,
279f, 281f, 287t288t, 290t, 292f, 293t,
295t
Writing Process and Product Worksheet,
282, 283f285f
Index[355]
writing processes
evidence-based model of, 303
importance of analyzing those of children
with dyslexia, 195196
story probes and, 282
strategies that determine selection of, 9, 10
that have received most attention from
researchers, 100
tools to investigate, 316318
writing processes analysis, 282
writing-process instruction, 274, 275
writing research, 3341, 313322
writing schemas, 9, 10, 11
writing skills, in children with hearing loss,
influence of verbal working memory
on, 8597, 88t, 92t, 93t, 94t,95t
writing tablets, 195, 317, 320
written expression disorders, formula for
identifying, xvii
written language, integration of with oral
language into a new practice model,
301309
[ 3 5 6 ] Index
written language disorders, integration of

with oral language disorders,
313322
written language skills
reconstruction task and, 152
as required for full participation in
democratic society, 244
role of oral language in developing,
325332
written narratives
from French- and English-speaking
children with language impairment,
176185, 179t, 180t, 181t, 182t, 183t,
184t, 185t
written story probes, 273, 280, 281282,
289, 290
Ziegler, J.C., 202, 320
Zoellner, R., 101
zone of proximal development, 39, 274
Zorman, M., 203
Zucker, T., 114

Barbara Arfe, Julie Dockrell, Virginia Berninger-Writing Development in Children With Hearing Loss, Dyslexia, Or Oral Language Problems_ Implications for Assessment and Instruction-Oxford University P

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Barbara Arfe, Julie Dockrell, Virginia Berninger-Writing Development in Children With Hearing Loss, Dyslexia, Or Oral Language Problems_ Implications for Assessment and Instruction-Oxford University P

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Writing Development in Children

withHearing Loss, Dyslexia, or

Children with Hearing Loss

Children with Oral Language Difficulties

learning environments. The integration of oral and written language is examined

Models and Perspectives on

Cognitive Processes in Writing

if we were to multiply 2 three-digit numbers mentally, we would need to remember

The Task Environment

I Like coloring because its not boring

I like coloring cats

I have a black cat at home

His name is Inky

INTEGRATING LEVELS OF THE FRAMEWORK

APPLYING THE COGNITIVE FRAMEWORK TO CLINICAL

In exploring the applications of this framework to writing practice and research,

Factors to consider in evaluating the resources (lower level Figure1.1) a writer

Selective Language Impairment (Language-Learning Disability)

Inferential thinking problems (understanding what is implied but not stated in

It is a step forward, however, to acknowledge, as this volume does, that individuals

[ 1 4 ] Part I:Models and Perspectives on Writing Development

Cognitive Processes in Writing:AFr amework[15]

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

UNITS OF ANALYSIS (SECTION 1)

Linguistic elements relevant to analyzing written language need to be defined

DIAGNOSTICS OF DEVELOPING WRITTEN TEXT CONSTRUCTION

(personal-experience narrative/expository discussion) for five text-based criteria

COMMUNICATIVE APPROPRIATENESS (SECTION 3)

cognitively challenging than an abstract topic like interpersonal conflict (Berman

[ 2 8 ] Part I:Models and Perspectives on Writing Development

Berman, R.A. & Nir, B. (2010). The lexicon in speech-writing differentiation:Developmental

[ 3 0 ] Part I:Models and Perspectives on Writing Development

Ravid, D. & Tolchinsky, L. (2002). Developing linguistic literacy: A comprehensive model.

3 who was in a few of my classes.

5 his father was an executive vice-president at the company

6 where my father worked.

7 The boy was constantly giving me grief,

11<to upset him>

13 this was ridiculous,

14 but nevertheless it was plenty annoying.

15 The boy was not just annoying to me,

16 he had conflicts with at least ten other people

19 So one day we went to the counseling office at the school.

20 The counselor told us

23 so the administration at the school did nothing.

24 Ivisited the principal

25 but he did not take any action either,

26 so the boy kept up his incessant pestering.

27 And one day Ifinally snapped.

28 When the teacher was out of the room,

29 the boy said something to me,

30 and Iturned around

31 and confronted him.

32 The boy told me

33 that Iwould not {or could not} do anything to him,

34<or could not>

35 so Iproved him wrong.

37 and from that day on he stayed away from me.

38 Iprobably should not have resorted to that action,

39 but nothing else {I had done} worked.

Legend:AV=Adverbial Clause, AV-CND=Conditional, AV-CCS=Circumstantial, AV- TMP=Temporal Clause,

Two Metaphors for Writing

TWO METAPHORS FOR TWO OPPOSING APPROACHES

From the cognitive perspective, writing development can be compared to the