Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 293–323 | Cite as

The contribution of vocabulary knowledge and semantic orthographic fluency to text quality through elementary school in Catalan

  • Cristina Castillo
  • Liliana Tolchinsky
Article
First Online:
  • 253 Downloads

Abstract

Building a text is a multidimensional endeavor. Writers must work simultaneously on the content of the text, its discursive organization, the structure of the sentences, and the individual words themselves. Knowledge of vocabulary is central to this endeavor. This study intends (1) to trace the development of writer’s vocabulary depth, their vocabulary fluency in writing, and the features of the text they produce (productivity, lexical richness, and text structure) through elementary school and (2) to determine the contribution of the writer’s performance and the text features to the quality of the text. One hundred and eighty bilingual Spanish/Catalan speakers from first, third, and sixth grade took part in the study. They participated in three researcher-created tasks; a synonyms/antonyms task to orally assess vocabulary depth; a semantic orthographic fluency task to examine their vocabulary fluency in writing; and a text writing task to evaluate text quality. Data was analyzed using structural equation modeling in order to examine the relationship between the target writer’s performance and the text features of the written compositions, and the externally evaluated text quality. Results revealed that both writer’s performance on vocabulary depth and semantic orthographic fluency and text features improved with school level. However, the capacity to establish meaning relations between words contributed more directly to the quality of texts than the speed to find words with a specific phonographic correspondence. External evaluation of text quality was more variable for younger students than for older students and was affected by school level mediated by writer performance and text features.

Keywords

Vocabulary depth Semantic orthographic fluency Text quality Elementary school Catalan 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Grant EDU2012-36577 from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, and by an APIF grant awarded to Cristina Castillo by the University of Barcelona.

References

  1. Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (1993). Structural equation modeling of relationships among developmental skills and writing skills in elementary and intermediate grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 478–508. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbott, R., 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, 281–298. doi: 10.1037/a0019318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adam, J. M. (1992). Les textes: types et prototypes. Récit, description, argumentation, explication et dialogue. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
  4. Anglin, J. M. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58(10), 1–166. doi: 10.2307/1166112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Babayigit, S., & Stainthorp, R. (2010). Component processes of early reading, spelling and narrative writing skills in Turkish: A longitudinal study. Reading and Writing, 23, 539–568. doi: 10.1007/s11145-009-9173-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1994). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Berman, R. (2004). Between emergence and mastery: The long developmental route of language acquisition. In R. A. Berman (Ed.), Language development accross childhood and adolescence. Trends in language acquisition research (Vol. 3, pp. 9–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berman, R., & Nir-Sagiv, B. (2009). Cognitive and linguistic factors in evaluating text quality: Global versus local. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 421–440). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berman, R. A., & Verhoeven, L. (2002). Cross-linguistic perspectives on the development of text-production abilities: Speech and writing. Written Language and Literacy, 5, 1–43. doi: 10.1075/wll.5.1.02ber.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berninger, V., & Hart, T. (1993). From research to clinical assessment of reading and writing disorders: the unit of analysis problem. In M. Joshi & L. Che Kan (Eds.), Reading disabilities: Diagnosis and component processes (pp. 33–62). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-011-1988-7_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Berninger, V., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R., Begay, K., Byrd, K., Curtin, G., et al. (2002). Teaching spelling and composition alone and together: Implications for the simple view of writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 291–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Berninger, V., & Winn, W. (2006). Implications of advancements in brain research and technology for writing development, writing instruction and educational evolution. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 96–114). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  13. Britton, J. N. (1975). The development of writing abilities (11–18). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  15. Brynildssen, S. (2000). Vocabulary’s influence on successful writing. ERIC Digest, D157. Bloomington. In Clearinghouse on reading English and communication. Google Scholar
  16. Charney, D. (1984). The validity of using holistic scoring to evaluate writing: A critical overview. Research in the Teaching of English, 18(1), 65–81.Google Scholar
  17. Chenoweth, A., & Hayes, J. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18, 80–98. doi: 10.1177/0741088301018001004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Connelly, V., Dockrell, J. E., & Barnett, J. (2005). The slow handwriting of undergraduate students constrains overall performance in exam essays. Educational Psychology, 25(1), 97–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Connelly, V., Dockrell, J. E., & Barnett, A. L. (2012). Children challenged by writing due to language and motor difficulties. In V. Berninger (Ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp. 217–246). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  20. Corona, C., Spangenberger, S., & Venet, I. (1998). Improving student writing through a language rich environment. M.A. Action Research Project, St. Xavier University and IRI/Skylight.Google Scholar
  21. Cutillas, L., & Tolchinsky, L. (2016). Use of adjectives in Catalan: A morphological characterization in different genres and modes of production through school-age development. First Language, 37, 58–82. doi: 10.1177/0142723716673957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. De Bruin, G. P. (2004). Problems with the factor analysis of items: Solutions based on item response theory and item parceling. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 30(4), 16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. DeMars, C. (2010). Item response theory (understanding statistics: Measurement). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dockrell, J. E., Lindsay, G., & Connelly, V. (2009). The impact of specific language impairment on adolescents’ written text. Exceptional children, 75(4), 427–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ediger, M. (1999). Reading and vocabulary development. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 26(1), 7–15.Google Scholar
  26. Engber, C. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Espin, C. A., Weissenburger, J. W., & Benson, B. J. (2004). Assessing the writing performance of students in special education. Exceptionality, 12, 55–66. doi: 10.1207/s15327035ex1201_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Farahani, F. (2006). The relationship between depth of vocabulary knowledge and EFL learners’ lexical inferencing strategy use and success (unpublished master’s thesis). Shiraz Azad University.Google Scholar
  29. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1984). Images, plans and prose: The representation of meaning in writing. Written Communication, 1(1), 120–160. doi: 10.1177/0741088384001001006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Galbraith, D. (2009). Cognitive models of writing. German as a Foreign Language, 2(3), 7–22.Google Scholar
  31. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  32. 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(1), 170–182. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harmon, J. M., Hedrick, W. B., & Wood, K. (2005). Research on vocabulary instruction in the content areas: Implications for struggling readers. Reading and Writing, 21(3), 261–280. doi: 10.1080/10573560590949377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Hayes, J., & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinnberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Jaffré, J. P. (1997). From writing to orthography: The functions and limits of the notion of system. In C. Perfetti, L. Rieben, & M. Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell: Research, theory, and practice across languages (pp. 3–20). London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  37. Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437–447. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Juel, C., Griffith, P. L., & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy. A longitudinal-study of children in 1st-grade and 2nd-grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 225–243. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.78.4.243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1985). Language and cognitive processes from a developmental perspective. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1(1), 61–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kellog, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. E. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 57–71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  41. Kim, Y. S., Al Oltaiba, S., Folsom, J., Greulich, L., & Puranik, C. (2014). Evaluating the dimensionality of first grade written composition. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 57, 199–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307–322. doi: 10.1093/applin/16.3.307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1999). A vocabulary size test of controlled productive ability. Language Testing, 16(1), 33–51. doi: 10.1177/026553229901600103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Leider, C. M., Proctor, C. P., Silverman, R. D., & Harris, J. R. (2013). Examining the role of vocabulary depth, cross-linguistic transfer, and types of reading measures on the reading comprehension of Latino bilinguals in elementary school. Reading and Writing, 9, 1459–1485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Target paper for Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75.Google Scholar
  46. Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., & Shahar, G. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151–173. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Llauradó, A., Martí, M. A., & Tolchinsky, L. (2012). Compiling a corpus of written Catalan produced by school children. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17(3), 428–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Llauradó, A., & Tolchinsky, L. (2013). Growth of text-embedded lexicon in Catalan: From childhood to adolescence. First Language, 33(6), 628–653. doi: 10.1177/0142723713508861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. MacArthur, C. A., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning disabled students’ composing under three methods of text production: Handwriting, word processing, and dictation. The Journal of Special Education, 21(3), 22–42. doi: 10.1177/002246698702100304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mackie, C., & Dockrell, J. (2004). The nature of written language deficits in children with SLI. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 47, 1469–1483. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2004/109).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Malvern, D., Richards, B. J., Chipere, N., & Durán, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McCarthy, (1972). Manual for the McCarthy scales of children’s abilities. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  53. McMaster, K., & Espin, C. (2007). Technical features of curriculum-based measures in writing: A literature review. Journal of Special Education, 41(2), 68–84. doi: 10.1177/00224669070410020301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nation, K., & Snowling, M. (2004). Beyond phonological skills: Broader language skills contribute to the development of reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 27(4), 342–356. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2004.00238.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nelson, N., Bahr, C., & Van Meter, A. (2004). The writing lab approach to language instruction and intervention. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.Google Scholar
  56. 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(5), 545–565. doi: 10.1007/s11145-008-9124-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Olinghouse, N. G., & Wilson, J. (2013). The relationship between vocabulary and writing quality in three genres. Reading and Writing, 26, 45–65. doi: 10.1007/s11145-012-9392-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Oullette, 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), 554–566. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–383. doi: 10.1080/10888430701530730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Proctor, C. P., Silverman, R., Harring, J., & 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, 1635–1644. doi: 10.1007/s11145-011-9336-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Puranik, C., & AlOtaiba, S. (2012). Examining the contribution of letter writing fluency and spelling to composition in kindergarten children. Reading and Writing, 25, 1523–1546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Puranik, C. S., Lombardino, L. J., & Altmann, L. J. (2008). Assessing the microstructure of written language using a retelling paradigm. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17(2), 107. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2008/012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rashidi, N., & Khosravi, N. (2010). Assessing the role of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 81–108.Google Scholar
  64. Ravid, D., & Berman, R. (2009). Developing linguistic register across text types. Pragmatics and Cognition, 17, 108–145. doi: 10.1075/pc.17.1.04rav.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ravid, D., & Levie, R. (2010). Hebrew adjectives in later language text production. First Language, 30(1), 27–55. doi: 10.1177/0142723709350529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Reise, S. P., & Rvicki, D. A. (2014). Handbook of item response theory modeling: Applications to typical performance assessment. Multivariate Applications Series. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  67. Salas, N. (2013). Early development of text writing in two contrasting orthographies. Ph.D. thesis, Prifysgol Bangor University.Google Scholar
  68. Salas, N., & Tolchinsky, L. (in press). Hunting for the links between word level writing skills and text level quality. In E. Segers & P. Van den Broek (Eds.), Developmental Perspectives in Written Language and Literacy: In honor of Ludo Verhoeven. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  69. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics: Reading, writing, and language learning (Vol. 2, pp. 142–175). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1992). Dos modelos explicativos de los procesos de composición escrita. Infancia y aprendizaje, 15(58), 43–64. doi: 10.1080/02103702.1992.10822332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schoonen, R., Snellings, P., Stevenson, M., & Van Gelderen, A. (2009). Towards a blueprint of the foreign language writer: The linguistic and cognitive demands of foreign language writing. In R. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching and research (pp. 77–101). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  72. Schoonen, R., Van Gelderen, A., De Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., et al. (2003). First language and second language writing: The role of linguistic fluency, linguistic knowledge, speed of processing and metacognitive knowledge. Language Learning, 53(1), 165–202. doi: 10.1111/1467-9922.00213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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, 324–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sénéchal, M., Ouellette, G., & Rodney, D. (2006). The misunderstood giant: On the predictive role of vocabulary to reading. In S. B. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy (Vol. 2, pp. 173–182). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  75. Stahr, L. S. (2008). Vocabulary size and the skills of listening, reading and writing. Language Learning Journal, 36(2), 139–152. doi: 10.1080/09571730802389975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Swanson, H. L., & Berninger, V. W. (1996). Individual differences in children’s working memory and writing skill. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 358–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tannenbaum, K. R., Torgesen, J. K., & Wagner, R. K. (2006). Relationships between word knowledge and reading comprehension in third-grade children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(4), 381–398. doi: 10.1207/s1532799xssr1004_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Tolchinsky, L. (2015). From text to language and back: The emergence of written language. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 144–159). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  79. Tolchinsky, L., & Castillo, C. (2016). Les percepcions de Mestres i experts sobre la qualitat dels textos. Llengua, Societat i Comunicació, 14, 57–67.Google Scholar
  80. Tolchinsky, L., & Jisa, H. (2016). Literacy development in Romance languages. In N. Kucirkova, C. Snow, V. Grover, & C. McBride (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of early literacy education (pp. 112–123). Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis Routledge.Google Scholar
  81. Wagner, R., Puranik, C., Foorman, B., Foster, E., Tschinkel, E., & Kantor, P. (2011). Modeling the development of written language. Reading and Writing, 24, 203–220. doi: 10.1007/s11145-010-9266-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wang, J., & Wang, X. (2012). Structural equation modeling, applications using Mplus. West Sussex: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wang, J., Hefetz, A., & Liberman, G. (2017). Applying structural equation modeling in educational research. Cultura y Educación, 29(3), 1–51. doi: 10.1080/11356405.2017.1367907.
  84. Yela, M., & Rojo, C. (1990). Estructura factorial de la fluidez verbal escrita en niños de 8 a 11 años. Revista de psicología general y aplicada, 43(1), 53–58.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departament de Didàctica de la Llengua i la Literatura, Facultat d’EducacióUniversitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Departament de Lingüística GeneralUniversitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options