Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the compositional performances of deaf and hearing students and to investigate the relationships between these performances and working memory capacities. Fifteen prelingually deaf, sign-using students and 15 hearing students composed a descriptive text and performed working memory tasks. The deaf students had poorer compositional performances in terms of fluency and spelling. They also displayed shorter writing and phonological spans. Correlations indicate that greater visuospatial capacity is associated with better conceptual processing in hearing students, but with an increase in grammatical errors in both deaf and hearing students. In the conclusion, we evoke ways of improving writing skills in deaf students in relation to working memory.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
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): 478–508
Aghababian V., Nazir T. -A., Lancon C., Tardy M., (2001). From “logographic” to normal reading: The case of a deaf beginning reader Brain and Language 78(2): 212–223
Alamargot D., Chanquoy L., (2001). Through the models of writing Kluwer Academic Publishers Dordrecht-Boston-London
Baddeley A. D., (1992). Working memory Science 255(5044): 556–559
Boutla M., Supalla T., Newport E., Bavelier D., (2004). Short-term memory span: insights from sign language Nature Neuroscience 7(9): 1–6
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: 331–349
Chanquoy L., Alamargot D., (2002). Mémoire de travail et rédaction de textes : Evolution des modèles et bilan des premiers travaux L’Année Psychologique 102: 363–398
Conrad R., (1979). The deaf school child Harper & Row London
Conrad R., (1964). Acoustic confusion in immediate memory British Journal of Psychology 55(1): 75–84
Conrad R., (1967). Interference or decay over short retention intervals Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 6: 49–54
Conte M. P., Rampelli L. P., Volterra V., (1996). Deaf children and the construction of written texts In Pontecorvo C., Orsolini M., (Eds.), Children’s early text construction Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Hillsdale, NJ (pp. 303–319)
Content A., Mousty P., Radeau M., (1990). BRULEX, une base de données lexicales informatisée pour le français écrit et parlé (BRULEX, a computerized lexical database for written and spoken French) L’Année Psychologique 90: 551–566
Daneman M., Green I., (1986). Individual differences in comprehending and producing words in context Journal of Memory and Language 25: 1–18
Desmette D., Hupet M., Schelstraete M. A., van der Linden M., (1995). Adaptation en langue française du “reading span test” de Daneman et Carpenter (1980) (French-language adaptation of the “reading span test” developed by Daneman and Carpenter (1980)) L’Année Psychologique 95: 459–482
Dodd B., (1976). The phonological system of deaf children Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 41: 185–198
Dodd B., (1980). The spelling abilities of profoundly pre-linguistically deaf children In Frith U., (Eds.), Cognitive processes in spelling Academic Press New York (pp. 423–443)
Dodd B., Hobson P., Brasher J., Campbell R., (1983). Deaf children’s short term memory for lip-read, graphic and signed stimuli British Journal of Developmental Psychology 1: 353–364
Duin A. H., Graves M. F., (1987). Intensive vocabulary instruction as a prewriting technique Reading Research Quarterly 22(3): 311–330
Fayol M., Largy P., Lemaire P., (1994). When cognitive overload enhances subject-verb agreement errors The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 47A: 437–464
Flower L., Hayes J. R., (1980). The dynamic of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints In Gregg L.W., Steinberg E.R., (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Hillsdale, NJ (pp. 31–50)
Garrisson W., Long G., Dowaliby F., (1997). Working memory capacity and comprehension processes in deaf readers Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2: 78–94
Gathercole S. E., Baddeley A. D., (1989). Evaluation of the role of phonological STM in the development of vocabulary in children: A longitudinal study Journal of Memory and Language 28: 200–213
Hanson V. L., Shankweiler D., Fischer F. W., (1983). Determinants of spelling ability in deaf and hearing adults: Access to linguistic structure Cognition 14(3): 323–344
Hanson V. L., Wilkenfeld D., (1985). Morphophonology and lexical organization in deaf readers Language and Speech 28: 269–279
Hayes J. R., Nash J. G., (1996). On the nature of planning in writing In Levy C. M., Ransdell S., (Eds.), The science of writing: theories, methods, individual differences and applications Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ (pp. 29–55)
Hupet M., Fayol M., Schelstraete M. A., (1998). Effects of semantic variables on the subject-verb agreement processes in writing British Journal of Psychology 89: 59–75
Kean M. L., (1979). Agrammatism: A phonological deficit Cognition 7: 69–84
Kellogg R. T., (1990). Effectiveness of prewriting strategies as a function of task demands American Journal of Psychology 103(3): 327–342
Kellogg R. T., (1996). A model of working memory in writing In Levy C. M., Ransdell S., (Eds.), The science of writing: theories, methods and applications Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Mahwah, NJ (pp. 57–72)
Kellogg, R. T., Olive, T., Piolat, A., (in press). Verbal and visual working memory during sentence production. In M. Torrance, L. Van Waes & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Writing and Cognition Amsterdam: Elsevier
Kelly L. P., (1987). The influence of syntactic anomalies on the writing processes of a deaf college student In Matsuhashi A., (Eds.), Writing in real time: modeling production processes Ablex Publishing Corporation Norwood, NJ (pp. 161–196)
Levy C. M., Marek P., (1999). Testing components of Kellogg’s multicomponent model of working memory in writing: The role of the phonological loop In Torrance M., Jeffery G. C., (Eds.), The cognitive demands of writing Amsterdam University Press Amsterdam (pp. 13–24)
Levy, C. M., White, K., Lea, J., & Ransdell, S., (1999). Contributions of the visual-spatial sketchpad, phonological loop and central executive to writing and recall. Paper presented at the conference “Writing and learning to write at the dawn of the 21th century”, Poitiers, France
Leybaert J., (2000). Phonology acquired through the eyes and spelling in deaf children Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 75: 291–318
Leybaert J., Alegria J., (1995). Spelling development in deaf and hearing children: Evidence from use of morpho-phonological regularities in French Reading and Writing 7: 89–109
Leybaert J., Alegria J., Hage C., Charlier B., (1998). The effect of exposure to phonetically augmented lipspeech in the prelingual deaf In Campbell R., Dood B., Burnham D., (Eds.), Hearing by eye Vol. 2. Taylor & Francis Hove
Leybaert J., Lechat J., (2001). Variability in deaf children’s spelling: the effect of language experience Journal of Educational Psychology 93(3): 554–562
Lichtenstein E. H., (1998). The relationships between reading processes and English skills of deaf college students Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 3(2): 80–134
Marschark M., Mayer T. S., (1998a). Interactions of language and memory in deaf children and adults Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 39(3): 145–148
Marschark M., Mayer T. S., (1998b). Mental representation and memory in deaf adults and children In Marschark M., Diane Clarke M., (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on deafness, Vol. 2 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Mahwah, NJ (pp. 53–77)
Marschark M., Mouradian V., Halas M., (1994). Discourse rules in the language productions of deaf and hearing children Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 57(1): 89–107
McCutchen D., (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition Educational Psychology Review 8(3): 299–325
Mozzer-Mather S., (1990). A strategy to improve deaf students’ writing through the use of glosses of signed narratives Gallaudet University Research Institute Washington, DC
Olson D. R., Caramazza A., (2004). Orthographic structure and deaf spelling errors: Syllables, letter frequency, and speech The Quartely Journal of Experimental Psychology 57A(3): 385–417
Padden C. A., (1993). Lessons to be learned from the young deaf orthographer Linguistics and Education 5(1): 71–86
Parasnis I., Samar V. J., Bettger J., Sathe K., (1996). Does deafness lead to enhancement of visual-spatial cognition in children? Negative evidence from deaf non-signers Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 1: 145–152
Passerault J. M., Dinet J., (2000). The role of visuospatial sketchpad in the written production of descriptive and argumentative texts Current Psychology Letters 3: 31–42
Quigley S., King C., (1980). Syntactic performance of hearing impaired and normal hearing individuals Applied Psycholinguistics 1: 329–356
Ransdell S., Arecco M. R., Levy C. M., (2001). Bilingual long-term working memory: The effects of working memory loads on writing quality and fluency Applied Psycholinguistics 22(1): 113–128
Ransdell S., Levy C. M., (1996). Working memory constraints on writing quality and fluency In Levy C. M., Ransdell S., (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Mahwah (pp. 93–105)
Ransdell S., Levy C. M., Kellogg R. T., (2002). The structure of writing processes as revealed by secondary task demands L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature 2: 141–163
Sadoski M., Kealy W. A., Goetz E. T., Paivio A., (1997). Concreteness and imagery effects in the written composition of definitions Journal of Educational Psychology 89: 518–526
Siple P., (2000). Attentional resources and working memory: A new framework for the study of the impact of deafness on cognition In Emmorey K., Lane H., (Eds.), The signs of language revisited: An anthology in honor of Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Mahwah, NJ (pp. 115–134)
Sprenger-Charolles L., Siegel L. S., Bonnet P., (1998). Reading and spelling acquisition: The role of phonological mediation and orthographic factors Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 68: 134–165
Swanson H. L., Berninger V. W., (1996). Individual differences in children’s working memory and writing skills Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 63: 358–385
Transler C., Gombert J. E., Leybaert J., (2001). Phonological decoding in severely and profoundly deaf children: Similarity judgment between written pseudowords Applied Psycholinguistics 22: 61–82
Treiman R., (1994). Sources of information used by beginning spellers In Brown G. D., Ellis N. C., (Eds.), Handbook of spelling: Theory, process and intervention Wiley Chichester (pp. 75–91)
Volterra V., Bates E., (1989). Selective impairment of Italian grammatical morphology in the congenitally deaf: A case study Cognitive Neuropsychology 6: 273–308
Wechsler D., (1987). Wechsler memory scale revised Psychological Corporation San Antonio
Wilson M., Bettger J., Niculae I., Klima E., (1997). Modality of language shapes working memory: Evidence from a digit span and spatial span in ASL signers Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2: 150–160
Wilson M., Emmorey K., (1997a). A visuospatial “phonological loop” in working memory: Evidence from American Sign Language Memory and Cognition 25: 313–320
Wilson M., Emmorey K., (1997b). Working memory for sign language: A window into the architecture of the working memory system Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2(3): 121–130
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank the reviewers for their interesting comments, which have enabled us to improve the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix A
Appendix A
A Standard multiple regression was conducted with three variables: writing span, phonological span and visuospatial span scores. The criteria were fluency, the number of attributes (per object) and the frequency of spelling, grammatical and phonological inaccurate/accurate errors (per word). Regression analyses were performed independently for each of the two groups. Regression results (β, r semi-partial and probability) are shown in Table 5.
Table 5.
Regression model | Writing span | Phonological span | Visuospatial span | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fluency | Deaf students | R 2 = 0.60 | β = 0.79 | β = −0.065 | β = 0.057 |
F(3,11) = 5.54 | R = 0.69 | R = −0.05 | R = 0.08 | ||
p = 0.014 | T (12) = 3.64; p = 0.003 | T (12) = -.27; p = 0.78 (n.s.) | T (12) = 0.27; p = 0.78 (n.s.) | ||
Hearing students | R 2 = 0.18 | β = −0.29 | β = 0.38 | β = 0.47 | |
F(3,11) = 0.84 | R = −0.18 | R = 0.28 | R = 0.36 | ||
p = 0.49 | T (12) = 0.68; p = 0.51 (n.s.) | T (12) = 1.03; p = 0.32 (n.s.) | T (12) = 1.34; p = 0.20 (n.s.) | ||
Attributes | Deaf students | R 2 = 0.11 | β = 0.17 | β = −0.40 | β = 0.21 |
F(3,11) = 0.46 | R = 0.15 | R = −0.32 | R = 0.19 | ||
p = 0.71 (n.s.) | T (12) = 0.52; p = 0.61 (n.s.) | T (12) = −1.13; p = 0.27 (n.s.) | T (12) = 0.68; p = 0.51 (n.s.) | ||
Hearing students | R 2 = 0.45 | β = −0.25 | β = 0.46 | β = 0.69 | |
F(3,11) = 2.98 | R = −0.16 | R = 0.34 | R = 0.53 | ||
p = 0.07 (tend) | T (12) = −0.71;p = 0.48 (n.s.) | T (12) = 1.52; p = 0.15 (n.s.) | T (12) = 2.38; p = 0.034 | ||
Spelling errors | Deaf students | R 2 = 0.21 | β = −0.28 | β = −0.23 | β = 0.32 |
F(3,11) = 0.99 | R = −0.24 | R = −0.18 | R = 0.29 | ||
p = 0.43 (n.s.) | T (12) = −0.92; p = 0.37 (n.s.) | T (12) = −0.70; p = 0.49 (n.s.) | T (12) = 1.11; p = 0.28 (n.s.) | ||
Hearing students | R 2 = 0.33 | β = −0.28 | β = −0.37 | β = 0.06 | |
F(3,11) = 1.83 | R = −0.17 | R = −0.28 | R = 0.05 | ||
p = 0.19 (n.s.) | T (12) = −0.72; p = 0.48 (n.s.) | T (12) = −1.13; p = 0.28 (n.s.) | T (12) = 0.20; p = 0.84 (n.s.) | ||
Grammatical errors | Deaf students | R 2 = 0.54 | β = 0.37 | β = −0.11 | β = 0.64 |
F(3,11) = 4.39 | R = 0.32 | R = −0.097 | R = 0.59 | ||
p = 0.029 | T (12) = 1.58; p = 0.13 (n.s.) | T (12) = −0.47; p = 0.63 (n.s.) | T (12) = 2.91; p = 0.01 (n.s.) | ||
Hearing students | R 2 = 0.31 | β = −0.28 | β = 0.04 | β = 0.66 | |
F(3,11) = 1.66 | R = −0.17 | R = 0.03 | R = 0.51 | ||
p = 0.23 (n.s.) | T (12) = −0.70; p = 0.49 (n.s.) | T (12) = 0.12; p = 0.90 (n.s. ) | T (12) = 2.05; p = 0.06 (marginal) | ||
PI errors | Deaf students | R 2 = 0.33 | β = −0.045 | β = −0.28 | β = 0.62 |
F(3,11) = 1.84 | R = −0.039 | R = −0.23 | R = 0.57 | ||
p = 0.20 (n.s.) | T (12) = −0.16; p = 0.87 (n.s.) | T (12) = −0.93; p = 0.36 (n.s.) | T (12) = 2.32; p = 0.038 | ||
PA errors | Hearing students | R 2 = 0.40 | β = −0.55 | β = −0.13 | β = 0.58 |
F(3,11) = 2.47 | R = −0.34 | R = −0.09 | R = 0.44 | ||
p = 0.11 (n.s.) | T (12) = −1.47; p = 0.16 (n.s.) | T (12) = −0.42; p = 0.67 (n.s.) | T (12) = 1.92; p = 0.077 (marginal) |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Alamargot, D., Lambert, E., Thebault, C. et al. Text composition by deaf and hearing middle-school students: The role of working memory. Read Writ 20, 333–360 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-006-9033-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-006-9033-y