Reading and Writing

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 333–360 | Cite as

Text composition by deaf and hearing middle-school students: The role of working memory

  • Denis Alamargot
  • Eric Lambert
  • Claire Thebault
  • Christophe Dansac
Article

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.

Keywords

Deafness Writing Text production Spelling Working memory 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank the reviewers for their interesting comments, which have enabled us to improve the manuscript.

References

  1. 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): 478–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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): 212–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alamargot D., Chanquoy L., (2001). Through the models of writing Kluwer Academic Publishers Dordrecht-Boston-LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Baddeley A. D., (1992). Working memory Science 255(5044): 556–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boutla M., Supalla T., Newport E., Bavelier D., (2004). Short-term memory span: insights from sign language Nature Neuroscience 7(9): 1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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: 331–349Google Scholar
  7. Chanquoy L., Alamargot D., (2002). Mémoire de travail et rédaction de textes : Evolution des modèles et bilan des premiers travaux L’Année Psychologique 102: 363–398Google Scholar
  8. Conrad R., (1979). The deaf school child Harper & Row LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Conrad R., (1964). Acoustic confusion in immediate memory British Journal of Psychology 55(1): 75–84Google Scholar
  10. Conrad R., (1967). Interference or decay over short retention intervals Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 6: 49–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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)Google Scholar
  12. 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: 551–566Google Scholar
  13. Daneman M., Green I., (1986). Individual differences in comprehending and producing words in context Journal of Memory and Language 25: 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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: 459–482Google Scholar
  15. Dodd B., (1976). The phonological system of deaf children Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 41: 185–198Google Scholar
  16. 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)Google Scholar
  17. 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: 353–364Google Scholar
  18. Duin A. H., Graves M. F., (1987). Intensive vocabulary instruction as a prewriting technique Reading Research Quarterly 22(3): 311–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fayol M., Largy P., Lemaire P., (1994). When cognitive overload enhances subject-verb agreement errors The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 47A: 437–464Google Scholar
  20. 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)Google Scholar
  21. Garrisson W., Long G., Dowaliby F., (1997). Working memory capacity and comprehension processes in deaf readers Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2: 78–94Google Scholar
  22. 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: 200–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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): 323–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hanson V. L., Wilkenfeld D., (1985). Morphophonology and lexical organization in deaf readers Language and Speech 28: 269–279Google Scholar
  25. 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)Google Scholar
  26. 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: 59–75Google Scholar
  27. Kean M. L., (1979). Agrammatism: A phonological deficit Cognition 7: 69–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kellogg R. T., (1990). Effectiveness of prewriting strategies as a function of task demands American Journal of Psychology 103(3): 327–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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)Google Scholar
  30. 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: ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  31. 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)Google Scholar
  32. 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)Google Scholar
  33. 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, FranceGoogle Scholar
  34. Leybaert J., (2000). Phonology acquired through the eyes and spelling in deaf children Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 75: 291–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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: 89–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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 HoveGoogle Scholar
  37. Leybaert J., Lechat J., (2001). Variability in deaf children’s spelling: the effect of language experience Journal of Educational Psychology 93(3): 554–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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): 80–134Google Scholar
  39. Marschark M., Mayer T. S., (1998a). Interactions of language and memory in deaf children and adults Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 39(3): 145–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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)Google Scholar
  41. 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): 89–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McCutchen D., (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition Educational Psychology Review 8(3): 299–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mozzer-Mather S., (1990). A strategy to improve deaf students’ writing through the use of glosses of signed narratives Gallaudet University Research Institute Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  44. 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): 385–417Google Scholar
  45. Padden C. A., (1993). Lessons to be learned from the young deaf orthographer Linguistics and Education 5(1): 71–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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: 145–152Google Scholar
  47. Passerault J. M., Dinet J., (2000). The role of visuospatial sketchpad in the written production of descriptive and argumentative texts Current Psychology Letters 3: 31–42Google Scholar
  48. Quigley S., King C., (1980). Syntactic performance of hearing impaired and normal hearing individuals Applied Psycholinguistics 1: 329–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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): 113–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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)Google Scholar
  51. 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: 141–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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: 518–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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)Google Scholar
  54. 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: 134–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Swanson H. L., Berninger V. W., (1996). Individual differences in children’s working memory and writing skills Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 63: 358–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Transler C., Gombert J. E., Leybaert J., (2001). Phonological decoding in severely and profoundly deaf children: Similarity judgment between written pseudowords Applied Psycholinguistics 22: 61–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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)Google Scholar
  58. Volterra V., Bates E., (1989). Selective impairment of Italian grammatical morphology in the congenitally deaf: A case study Cognitive Neuropsychology 6: 273–308Google Scholar
  59. Wechsler D., (1987). Wechsler memory scale revised Psychological Corporation San AntonioGoogle Scholar
  60. 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: 150–160Google Scholar
  61. Wilson M., Emmorey K., (1997a). A visuospatial “phonological loop” in working memory: Evidence from American Sign Language Memory and Cognition 25: 313–320Google Scholar
  62. 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): 121–130Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Denis Alamargot
    • 1
  • Eric Lambert
    • 2
  • Claire Thebault
    • 3
  • Christophe Dansac
    • 4
  1. 1.Laboratory “Language, Memory and Cognitive Development” UMR-CNRS, University of Poitiers, MSHSPoitiersFrance
  2. 2.Laboratory “Language, Memory and Cognitive Development”, UMR-CNRS, Graduate School for TeachersPoitiersFrance
  3. 3.Institute for Deaf ChildrenPoitiersFrance
  4. 4.Laboratory “Work and Cognition”, UMR-CNRS, University of ToulouseToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations