Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 31, Issue 7, pp 1591–1618 | Cite as

Relations between reading and writing: a longitudinal examination from grades 3 to 6

  • Young-Suk Grace Kim
  • Yaacov Petscher
  • Jeanne Wanzek
  • Stephanie Al Otaiba
Article
First Online:

Abstract

We investigated developmental trajectories of and the relation between reading and writing (word reading, reading comprehension, spelling, and written composition), using longitudinal data from students in Grades 3–6 in the US. Results revealed that word reading and spelling were best described as having linear growth trajectories whereas reading comprehension and written composition showed nonlinear growth trajectories with a quadratic function during the examined developmental period. Word reading and spelling were consistently strongly related (.73 ≤ rs ≤ .80) whereas reading comprehension and written composition were weakly related (.21 ≤ rs ≤ .37). Initial status and linear slope were negatively and moderately related for word reading (− .44) whereas they were strongly and positively related for spelling (.73). Initial status of word reading predicted initial status and growth rate of spelling; and growth rate of word reading predicted growth rate of spelling. In contrast, spelling did not predict word reading. When it comes to reading comprehension and writing, initial status of reading comprehension predicted initial status (.69), but not linear growth rate, of written comprehension. These results indicate that reading–writing relations are stronger at the lexical level than at the discourse level and may be a unidirectional one from reading to writing at least between Grades 3 and 6. Results are discussed in light of the interactive dynamic literacy model of reading–writing relations, and component skills of reading and writing development.

Keywords

Reading Writing Developmental trajectories Spelling Interactive dynamic literacy model 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, P50 HD052120. The authors appreciate participating children, their parents, and teachers and school personnel.

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, 478–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to reading: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ahmed, Y., Wagner, R. K., & Lopez, D. (2014). Developmental relations between reading and writing at the word, sentence, and text levels: A latent change score analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 419–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Apel, K., Wilson-Fowler, E. B., Brimo, D., & Perrin, N. A. (2012). Metalinguistic contributions to reading and spelling in second and third grade students. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 1283–1305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bamberg, B. (1983). What makes a text coherent? College Composition and Communication, 34, 417–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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, 635–651.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 Learning Disabilities, 35, 39–56.  https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940203500104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Rogan, L., Reed, E., Abbott, S., Brooks, A., et al. (1998a). Teaching spelling to children with specific learning disabilities: The mind’s ear and eye beat the computer or pencil. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 106–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R. D., Brooks, A., Abbott, S. P., Rogan, L., et al. (1998b). Early intervention for spelling problems: Teaching functional spelling units of varying size with a multiple-connections framework. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 587–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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. Swanson, K. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 323–344). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  13. Berninger, V. W., & Swanson, H. L. (1994). Children’s writing; toward a process theory of the development of skilled writing. In E. Butterfield (Ed.), Children’s writing: Toward a process theory of development of skilled writing (pp. 57–81). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Reproduced in The Learning and Teaching of Reading and Writing (by R. Stainthorp). Wiley, 2006.Google Scholar
  14. 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. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 96–114). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  15. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21, 230–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (1999). Inference ability and its relation to comprehension failure in young children. Reading and Writing, 11, 489–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carlisle, J. F., & Katz, L. A. (2006). Effects of word and morpheme familiarity on reading of derived words. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 669–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of Reading Development. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  20. Compton, D. L., Miller, A. C., Elleman, A. M., & Steacy, L. M. (2014). Have we forsaken reading theory in the name of “quick fix” interventions for children with reading disability? Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Conners, F. A. (2009). Attentional control and the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 591–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cromley, J., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 311–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend o how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(277), 299.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_5.Google Scholar
  24. Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 422–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Deacon, S. H., & Bryant, P. E. (2005). What young children do and do not know about the spelling of inflections and derivations. Developmental Science, 8, 583–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ehri, L. C. (2000). Learning to read and learning to spell: Two sides of a coin. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(3), 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ehri, L. C., Satlow, E., & Gaskins, I. (2009). Grapho-phonemic enrichment strengthens keyword analysis instruction for struggling young readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25, 162–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Elleman, A. M., Lindo, E. J., Morphy, P., & Compton, D. L. (2009). The impact of vocabulary instruction on passage-level comprehension of school-age children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  30. Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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, 170–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Graham, S., Berninger, V. W., & Fan, W. (2007). The structural relationship between writing attitude and writing achievement in first and third grade students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 516–536.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2017). Reading and writing connections: How writing can build better readers (and vice versa). In C. Ng & B. Bartlett (Eds.), Improving reading and reading engagement in the 21st century (pp. 333–350). Springer: Singapore.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Chorzempa, B. F. (2002). Contribution of spelling instruction tothe spelling, writing, and reading of poor spellers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 669–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Graham, S., & Hebert, M. A. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improvereading. A Carnegie Corporation Time to Act Report. Washington, DC: Alliance forExcellent Education.Google Scholar
  36. Graham, S., Liu, X., Aitken, A., Ng, C., Bartlett, B., Harris, K. R., & et al. (in press). Effectiveness of literacy programs balancing reading and writing instruction: A meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly.Google Scholar
  37. Hayes, J. R. (2012). Evidence from language bursts, revisions, and transcriptionfor translation and its relation to other writing processes. In M. Fayol, D. Alamargot, & V. Berninger (Eds.), Translation of thought towritten text while composing: Advancing theory, knowledge, methods, and applications (pp. 45–67). East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  38. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization ofwriting processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Hayes, J. R., & Chenoweth, N. A. (2007). Working memory in an editing task. Written Communication, 24, 283–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53–60.Google Scholar
  41. Hooper, S. R., Swartz, C. W., Wakely, M. B., de Kruif, R. E. L., & Montgomery, J. W. (2002). Executive functions in elementary school children with and without problems in written expression. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 57–68.  https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940203500105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Juel, C., Griffith, P. L., & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 243–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 281–300.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430802132279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kellogg, R. T. (1999). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Randell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories of, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 57–71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Kieffer, M. (2011). Converging trajectories: Reading growth in language minority learners and their classmates, kindergarten to grade 8. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1187–1225.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211419490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kim, Y.-S. (2011). Considering linguistic and orthographic features in early literacy acquisition: Evidence from Korean. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 177–189.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kim, Y.-S. (2015). Language and cognitive predictors of text comprehension: Evidence from multivariate analysis. Child Development, 86, 128–144.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kim, Y.-S. G. (2017). Why the simple view of reading is not simplistic: Unpacking the simple view of reading using a direct and indirect effect model of reading (DIER). Scientific Studies of Reading, 21, 310–333.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1291643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kim, Y.-S., & Phillips, B. (2014). Cognitive correlates of listening comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 49, 269–281.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kim, Y.-S. G., & Wagner, R. K. (2015). Text (Oral) reading fluency as a construct in reading development: An investigation of its mediating role for children from Grades 1 to 4. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19, 224–242.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2015.1007375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kim, Y.-S. G., & Schatschneider, C. (2017). Expanding the developmental models of writing: A direct and indirect effects model of developmental writing (DIEW). Journal of Educational Psychology, 109, 35–50.  https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kim, Y.-S. G., & Graham, S. (2018). Integrating reading and writing: Interactive dynamic literacy model. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  54. Kim, Y.-S., Al Otaiba, S., Puranik, C., Folsom, J. S., Greulich, L., & Wagner, R. K. (2011). Componential skills of beginning writing: An exploratory study. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 517–525.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.06.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kim, Y.-S., Apel, K., & Al Otaiba, S. (2013). The relation of linguistic awareness and vocabulary to word reading and spelling for first-grade students participating in response to instruction. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 44, 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2013/12-0013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kim, Y.-S., Al Otaiba, S., Folsom, J. S., Greulich, L., & Puranik, C. (2014). Evaluating the dimensionality of first grade written composition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57, 199–211.  https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2013/12-0152).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kim, Y.-S., Al Otaiba, S., Puranik, C., Folsom, J. S., & Greulich, L. (2014). The contributions of vocabulary and letter writing automaticity to word reading and spelling for kindergartners. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27, 237–253.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9440-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kim, Y.-S., Al Otaiba, S., Wanzek, J., & Gatlin, B. (2015a). Towards an understanding of dimension, predictors, and gender gaps in written composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 79–95.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kim, Y.-S., Puranik, C., & Al Otaiba, S. (2015b). Developmental trajectories of writing skills in first grade: Examining the effects of SES and language and/or speech impairments. Elementary School Journal, 115, 593–613.  https://doi.org/10.1086/681971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kim, Y.-S. G., Petscher, Y., & Park, Y. (2016). Examining word factors and child factors for acquisition of conditional sound-spelling consistencies: A longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 20, 265–282.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2016.1162794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Langer, J. A., & Flihan, S. (2000). Writing and reading relationships: Constructive tasks. In R. Indrisano & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Writing and research/theory/practice (pp. 112–139). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  63. Lerkkanen, M., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J. (2004). The developmental dynamics of literacy skills during the first grade. Educational Psychology, 24, 793–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lervag, A., & Hulme, C. (2010). Predicting the growth of early spelling skills: Are there heterogeneous developmental trajectories? Scientific Studies of Reading, 14, 485–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Limpo, T., & Alves, R. A. (2013). Modelling writing development: Contribution of transcription and self-regulation to Portuguese students’ text generation quality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 401–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Little, R. J. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 1198–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. McArdle, J. J. (2009). Latent variable modeling of differences and changes with longitudinal data. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 577–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. McCoach, D. B., O’Connell, A. A., Reis, S. M., & Levitt, H. A. (2006). Growing readers: A hierarchical linear model of children’s reading growth during the first 2 years of school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 14–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. McGrew, K. S., Schrank, F. A., & Woodcock, R. W. (2007). Technical manual: Woodcock–Johnson III normative update. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.Google Scholar
  70. McMaster, K. L., Du, X., & Pétursdôttir, A. L. (2009). Technical features of curriculum-based measures for beginning writers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 41–60.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219408326212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Mehta, P. D., Foorman, B. R., Branum-Martin, L., & Taylor, W. P. (2005). Literacy as a unidimensional multilevel construct: Validation, sources of influence, and implications in a longitudinal study in grades 1 to 4. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 85–116.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Meredith, W., & Tisak, J. (1990). Latent curve analysis. Psychometrika, 55, 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., & Wu, Q. (2011). Kindergarten children’s growth trajectories in reading and mathematics: Who falls increasingly behind? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 472–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Muthén, B., & Muthén, L. (1998–2013). Mplus user’s guide, 7th Ed. Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  75. Nagy, W., Berninger, V., & Abbott, R. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 134–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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 (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  77. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (2011). 6 + 1 trait writing. Retrieved from http://educationnorthwest.org/traits.
  78. Oakhill, J., & Cain, K. (2012). The precursors of reading comprehension and word reading in young readers: Evidence from a four-year longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 91–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Olinghouse, N. G. (2008). Student- and instruction-level predictors of narrative writing in third-grade students. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 3–26.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9062-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 22–37.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Petscher, Y., Quinn, J. M., & Wagner, R. K. (2016). Modeling the co-development of correlated processes with longitudinal and cross-construct effects. Developmental Psychology, 52, 1690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Pressley, M., & Ghatala, E. S. (1990). Self-regulated learning: Monitoring learning from text. Educational Psychologist, 25, 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Raftery, A. E. (1995). Baysian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Shanahan, T. (2006). Relations among oral language, reading, and writing development. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 171–183). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  85. Shanahan, T., & Lomax, R. G. (1986). An analysis and comparison of theoretical models of the reading–writing relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 116–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 360–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Treiman, R. (1993). Beginning to spell: A study of first-grade children. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Vellutino, F. R., Tunmer, W. E., Jaccard, J. J., & Chen, R. (2007). Components of reading ability: Multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model of reading development. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 3–32.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430709336632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wechsler, D. (2009). Wechsler individual achievement test (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Pearson.Google Scholar
  90. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock–Johnson III tests of achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of California IrvineIrvineUSA
  2. 2.Florida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  3. 3.Vanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA
  4. 4.Southern Methodist UniversityDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options