Abstract
Learning to write in middle school requires the expansion of sentence-level and discourse-level language skills. In this study, we investigated later language development in the writing of a cross-sectional sample of 235 upper elementary and middle school students (grades 4–8) by examining the use of (1) lexico-grammatical forms that support precise and concise academic writing and (2) paragraph-level structures for organizing written discourse, known as micro-genres. Writing studies typically elicit and analyze long compositions, instead the present study employed two brief writing tasks that allowed for the evaluation of language skills while minimizing the influence of topic knowledge and other non-linguistic factors. Results of structural equation modeling revealed that the two facets of language proficiency studied—lexico-grammatical skills and skill in producing paragraph-level structures (micro-genres)—represented distinguishable dimensions of productive language skill in this sample. On both dimensions, older writers (grades 6–8) demonstrated greater skill than 4th and 5th graders. These findings, which provide an initial proof of concept for the use of short writing tasks to study language skills that support academic writing, are discussed in relation to writing theory and pedagogy.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
A horse is a four-legged + mammal + that can be ridden for + transportation.
(compact pre-modifier) + (superordinate) + (relative clause + nominalization).
In this study, English Language Learners (ELLs) refers to students who the school district have determined to face difficulty in accessing classroom instruction in English because of their levels of English proficiency.
Of note for this study, which employs a relatively small sample (n = 235), are the findings of Flora and Curran (2004), who demonstrated that WLSMV produced accurate test statistics, standard errors, and parameter estimates for medium sized models (10–15 indicators) with small samples (150–200). Therefore, we have reason to believe that the sample used in this study, which employed a particularly parsimonious model, is adequate.
Because the discourse-level structure text continuation items had patently non-normal distributions (most students received a score of 1 or 5), these items were recoded as binary variables (answers scored 1–3 = 0; answers scored as 4–5 = 1). In contrast, the definition scores showed a normal distribution and were retained as they were scored.
However, for this model, SRMR is not reported because this fit statistic does not perform well with binary indicators (Yu, 2002).
Other models also fit the data, including a single factor model as well as an alternative two-factor model that included unique dimensions for Lexico-grammatical skill’ and ‘knowledge of paragraph-level organization structures,’ but, unlike the winning model described above, specified cross-loadings between two indicators on the latter latent factor. Each of these models had important limitations. For example, a single factor model comprised of five indicators (a single testlet representing Lexico-grammatical skill and four indicators representing knowledge of discourse-level structures) was a good fit to the data {X 2(11) = 10.16, p = 0.07, RMSEA = 0.07 (90 % CI 0.00–0.125), TLI = 0.98, CFI = 0.99}. Yet, this model was not invariant across middle grade and elementary grade populations, and, as a result, would be inappropriate for comparing the performance in these two groups. Additionally, a two-factor model that specified a cross-loading between two indicator of the four indicators that comprised the latent construct ‘knowledge of paragraph-level organization structures’ was not selected as the final model despite demonstrating good fit to the data because there appears to be no sound theoretical reason for specifying this relationship between these two indicators. It is possible that construct-irrelevant features of the task—such as the similarity in format between these two items –may be at the root of this apparent shared variance. Future researchers might explore these models.
References
Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (1993). Structural equation modeling of relationships among developmental skills and writing skills in primary-and intermediate-grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 478.
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 Psychology, 102(2), 281.
Bar-Ilan, L., & Berman, R. A. (2007). Developing register differentiation: The Latinate-Germanic divide in English. Linguistics, 45(1), 1–35.
Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2009). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? Which genre? Reading and Writing, 22(2), 185–200.
Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2011). Writing development in four genres from grades three to seven: Syntactic complexity and genre differentiation. Reading and Writing, 24(2), 183–202.
Benelli, B., Belacchi, C., Gini, G., & Lucangeli, D. (2006). “To define means to say what you know about things”: The development of definitional skills as metalinguistic acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 33(1), 71–97.
Berman, R. (2004). Language development across childhood and adolescence (Vol. 3). John Benjamins Publishing.
Berman, R. A., & Nir-Sagiv, B. (2007). Comparing narrative and expository text construction across adolescence: A developmental paradox. Discourse Processes, 43, 79–120.
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. 92–111). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Berman, R. A., & Verhoeven, L. (2002). Cross-linguistic perspectives on the development of text-production abilities: Speech and writing. Written Language & Literacy, 5(1), 1–43.
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(3), 635.
Berninger, V. W., Cartwright, A. C., Yates, C. M., Swanson, H. L., & Abbott, R. D. (1994). Developmental skills related to writing and reading acquisition in the intermediate grades. Reading and Writing, 6(2), 161–196.
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biemiller, A. (2010). Words worth teaching: Closing the vocabulary gap. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill SRA.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 17(3), 303–316.
Bravo, M. A., & Cervetti, G. N. (2008). Teaching vocabulary through text and experience in content areas. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about vocabulary instruction (pp. 130–149). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Britton, B. K. (1994). Understanding expository text: Building mental structure to induce insights. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 641–674). San Diego: Academic Press.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press.
Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior research methods, 46(3), 904–911.
Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (1995). OWLS (oral and Written Language Scales) manual: Listening comprehension and oral expression. American Guidance Service.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155.
Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33(4), 497–505.
Corson, D. (1997). The learning and use of academic English words. Language Learning, 47(4), 671–718.
Craswell, G., & Poore, M. (2012). Writing for academic success. London: Sage.
Crossley, S. A., Roscoe, R., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). What is successful writing? An investigation into the multiple ways writers can write successful essays. Written Communication, 31(2), 184–214.
Crossley, S. A., Weston, J. L., Sullivan, S. T. M., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). The development of writing proficiency as a function of grade level: A linguistic analysis. Written Communication, 28(3), 282–311.
Crowhurst, M. (1980). Syntactic complexity in narration and argument at three grade levels. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l'éducation, 5(1), 6–13.
Crowhurst, M. (1987). Cohesion in argument and narration at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 21(2), 185–201.
Deane, P. (2013). On the relation between automated essay scoring and modern views of the writing construct. Assessing Writing, 18, 7–24.
El Euch, S. (2007). Concreteness and language effects in the quality of written definitions in L1, L2 and L3. International Journal of Multilingualism, 4(3), 198–216.
Finney, S., & DiStefano, C. (2006). Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 269–314). Greenwich: Information Age.
Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 466.
Geva, E., & Farnia, F. (2012). Developmental changes in the nature of language proficiency and reading fluency paint a more complex view of reading comprehension in ELL and EL1. Reading and Writing, 25(8), 1819–1845.
Gini, G., Benelli, B., & Belacchi, C. (2004). Children’s definitional skills and their relations with metalinguistic awareness and school achievement. School Psychology, 2(1–2), 239–267.
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, 36(2), 193–202.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5(2), 93, 116.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2(2), 127–160.
King, M., & Rentel, V. (1979). Toward a theory of early writing development. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 243–253.
Kurland, B. F., & Snow, C. E. (1997). Longitudinal measurement of growth in definitional skill. Journal of Child Language, 24(3), 603–625.
Lesaux, N. K., & Kieffer, M. J. (2010). Exploring sources of reading comprehension difficulties among language minority learners and their classmates in early adolescence. American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 596–632.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk, volume II: The database (Vol. 2). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Maguire, M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2006). 14 A unified theory of word learning: Putting verb acquisition in context. In K. Hirsh-Pasek & R. M. Golinkoff (Eds.), Action meets word: How children learn verbs (pp. 3–28). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Marinellie, S. A. (2009). The content of children’s definitions: The oral-written distinction. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 25(1), 89–102.
Marinellie, S. A., & Johnson, C. J. (2004). Nouns and verbs: A comparison of definitional style. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33(3), 217–235.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.
McCutchen, D. (2000). Knowledge, processing, and working memory: Implications for a theory of writing. Educational psychologist, 35(1), 13–23.
McCutchen, D., & Perfetti, C. A. (1982). Coherence and connectedness in the development of discourse production. ERIC Clearinghouse.
McGhee-Bidlack, B. (1991). The development of noun definitions: A metalinguistic analysis. Journal of Child Language, 18, 417–434.
Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text-key for reading-comprehension of 9th-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72–103.
Muthén, B. O. (1989). Latent variable modeling in heterogeneous populations. Psychometrika, 54(4), 557–585.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA.
Myhill, D. (2005). Ways of knowing: writing with grammar in Mind. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 4(3), 77–96.
Myhill, D. (2009). Developmental trajectories in mastery of paragraphing: Towards a model of development. Written Language & Literacy, 12(1), 26–51.
Nippold, M. A., Hegel, S., Sohlberg, M., & Schwarz, I. (1999). Defining abstract entities: Development in pre-adolescents, adolescents, and young adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 473–481.
Nippold, M. A., Hesketh, L. J., Duthie, J. K., & Mansfield, T. C. (2005a). Conversational versus expository discourse: A study of syntactic development in children, adolescents, and adults. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 48(5), 1048.
Nippold, M. A., Ward-Lonergan, J. M., & Fanning, J. L. (2005b). Persuasive writing in children, adolescents, and adults a study of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic development. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36(2), 125–138.
Olinghouse, N. G., & Leaird, J. T. (2009). The relationship between measures of vocabulary and narrative writing quality in second- and fourth-grade students. Reading and Writing, 22, 545–565.
Olinghouse, N. G., & Wilson, J. (2013). The relationship between vocabulary and writing quality in three genres. Reading and Writing, 26(1), 45–65.
Ordóñez, C. L., Carlo, M. S., Snow, C. E., & McLaughlin, B. (2002). Depth and breadth of vocabulary in two languages: Which vocabulary skills transfer? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 719.
Ouellette, G. P. (2006). What’s meaning got to do with it: The role of vocabulary in word reading and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 554.
Paltridge, B. (2012). Teaching English for specific purposes. In The Cambridge guide to pedagogy and practice in second language teaching and learning, pp. 179–185.
Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22–37.
Proctor, C. P., Silverman, R. D., Harring, J. R., & Montecillo, C. (2012). The role of vocabulary depth in predicting reading comprehension among English monolingual and Spanish–English bilingual children in elementary school. Reading and Writing, 25(7), 1635–1664.
Ravid, D., & Berman, R. A. (2010). Developing noun phrase complexity at school age: A text-embedded cross-linguistic analysis. First Language, 30(1), 3–26.
Ravid, D., & Tolchinsky, L. (2002). Developing linguistic literacy: A comprehensive model. Journal of Child Language, 29, 419–448.
Ravid, D. (2006). Semantic development in textual contexts during the school years: Noun Scale analyses. Journal of Child Language, 33(04), 791–821.
Rubin, D. L. (1982). Adapting syntax in writing to varying audiences as a function of age and social cognitive ability. Journal of Child Language, 9(02), 497–510.
Rubin, D. L., & Piche, G. L. (1979). Development in syntactic and strategic aspects of audience adaptation skills in written persuasive communication. Research in the Teaching of English, 13(4), 293–316.
Sánchez, E., & García, J. R. (2009). The relation of knowledge of textual integration devices to expository text comprehension under different assessment conditions. Reading and Writing, 22(9), 1081–1108.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Scott, C. M. (2004). Syntactic contributions to literacy learning. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 340–362). New York: The Guilford Press.
Scott, C. M. (2010). Assessing expository texts produced by children and adolescents. In M. Nippold & C. Scott (Eds.), Expository discourse in children and adults. New York: 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(4), 288.
Scott, J. A., & Nagy, W. E. (1997). Understanding the definitions of unfamiliar verbs. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 184–200.
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(2), 324.
Snow, C. E. (1990). The development of definitional skill. Journal of Child Language, 17(3), 697–710.
Snow, C. E., Cancino, H., & Gonzales, P. (1989). Giving formal definitions: An oral language correlate of school literacy. In D. Bloome (Ed.), Learning to use literacy in educational settings. Norwod, NJ: Ablex.
Snow, C. E., & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge of academic language. In D. R. Olson, & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy (pp. 112–133). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Stahl, K. A., & Bravo, M. A. (2010). Contemporary classroom vocabulary assessment for content areas. The Reading Teacher, 63(7), 566–578.
Uccelli, P., Barr, C. D., Dobbs, C. L., Galloway, E. P., Meneses, A., & Sanchez, E. (2014). Core academic language skills: An expanded operational construct and a novel instrument to chart school-relevant language proficiency in preadolescent and adolescent learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, (5)1075–1107.
Uccelli, P., Dobbs, C. L., & Scott, J. (2013). Mastering academic language organization and stance in the persuasive writing of high school students. Written Communication, 30(1), 36–62.
Uccelli, P., Galloway, E. P., Barr, C., Meneses, A., & Dobbs, C. (2015). Beyond vocabulary: Exploring cross-disciplinary academic language proficiency and its association with reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(3).
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82–93.
Verhoeven, L., & van Hell, J. G. (2008). From knowledge representation to writing text: A developmental perspective. Discourse Processes, 45(4–5), 387–405.
Wechsler, D. (2002). Wechsler individual achievement test (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
Whitaker, D., Berninger, V., Johnston, J., & Lee Swanson, H. (1994). Intraindividual differences in levels of language in intermediate grade writers: Implications for the translating process. Learning and Individual differences, 6(1), 107–130.
Woodward-Kron, R. (2005). The role of genre and embedded genres in tertiary students´ writing. Prospect: An Australian Journal of TESOL, 20(3), 24–44.
Yu, C. Y. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Zeno, S., Duvvuri, R., & Millard, R. T. (1995). The educator’s word frequency guide. Brewster, NY: Touchstone Applied Science Associates.
Acknowledgments
The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education through Grant R305F100026, which was awarded to the Strategic Education Research Partnership as part of the Reading for Understanding Research Initiative. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the institute or the US Department of Education. We express our gratitude to the students and teachers who shared their valuable time and insights with us and to our numerous colleagues for their helpful comments as we conducted this work. In particular, we want to give special thanks to our colleague Emilio Sánchez from the Universidad de Salamanca, Spain, who worked closely during 1 year as we designed the CALS-I. We would also like to thank Alejandra Meneses for her leadership in the design of the scoring system applied to both the tasks used in this study. We also express gratitude to Christina Dobbs, Jessica Scott and Mary Burkhauser for support during this pilot study. Special thanks are also due to Catherine E. Snow, Andrew Ho and Katherine Mason for their feedback on this draft. Finally, we want to thank the three anonymous reviewers and Michael J. Kieffer whose encouraging and helpful feedback contributed to improving this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Galloway, E.P., Uccelli, P. Modeling the relationship between lexico-grammatical and discourse organization skills in middle grade writers: insights into later productive language skills that support academic writing. Read Writ 28, 797–828 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9550-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9550-7