Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Matthew effects in writing productivity during second grade

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The primary aims of this study were twofold: (a) to describe average change in the written narrative performance of second grade students from the fall and spring of the school year and (b) examine patterns of individual growth to test for Matthew effects. Participants included 299 children in second grade. Microstructural measures were derived from students’ written narratives including: number of different words (NDW), total number of words (TNW), and accuracy of spelling and grammar. Significant increases in NDW, TNW, and spelling accuracy were evidenced from fall to spring. Students averaged 55 total words in the fall and averaged 69 words in the spring, with a statistically significant increase of 14 words t(299) = 8.4, p < .0001). The variance in TNW from fall to spring increased from Var = 791 to Var = 1005, which was a significant increase and the correlation of initial Fall TNW and growth in TNW was also significant (r = 0.39). Additionally, results from a two-level hierarchical linear model with students nested within teachers indicated that initial level of TNW predicted the change in TNW from fall to spring, with higher levels of initial TNW being related to larger gains in TNW. Significant predictors of Matthew effects included teacher or classroom and free/reduced lunch eligibility. Written personal narrative measures are sensitive to developmental change across a school year. Evidence of Matthew effects in lexical productivity suggests additional support may be warranted to ameliorate gaps in writing achievement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abbott, R. D., Berninger, V. W., & Fayol, M. (2010). Longitudinal relationships of levels of language in writing and between writing and reading in grades 1–7. Journal of Educational Psychology,102, 281–298. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019318briefs/FPG_CECER-DLL_AssessingDLLs.pdf.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahr, R. H., Silliman, E. R., Berninger, V. W., & Dow, M. (2012). Linguistic pattern analysis of misspellings of typically developing writers in grades 1–9. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research,55, 1587–1599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bast, J., & Reitsma, P. (1997). Mathew effects in reading: A comparison of latent growth curve models and simplex models with structured means. Multivariate Behavioral Research,32(2), 135–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, M., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software,67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, R. A., & Verhoeven, L. (2002). Cross-linguistic perspectives on the development of text-production abilities: Speech and writing. Written Language and Literacy Written Language & Literacy Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on the Development of Text- Production Abilities in Speech and Writing. Part 1,5(1), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.5.1.02ber.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Nagy, W., & Carlisle, J. (2010). Growth in phonological, orthographic, and morphological awareness in grades 1–6. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,39(2), 141–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. W., & 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. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 345–363). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V., & Richards, T. (2010). Inter-relationships among behavioral markers, genes, brain, and treatment in dyslexia and dysgraphia. Future Neurology,5, 597–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broc, L., Bernicot, J., Olive, T., Favart, M., Reilly, J., Quémart, P., et al. (2013). Lexical spelling in children and adolescents with specific language impairment: Variations with the writing situation. Research in Developmental Disabilities,34, 3253–3266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camacho, A., & Alves, R. A. (2017). Fostering parental involvement in writing: Development and testing of the program cultivating writing. Reading and Writing, 30(2), 253–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connelly, V., Dockrell, J. E., Walter, K., & Critten, S. (2012). Predicting the quality of composition and written language bursts from oral language, spelling, and handwriting skills in children with and without specific language impairment. Written Communication,29(3), 278–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312451109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, A. E., & Stonovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology,33, 934–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danzak, R. L. (2011). The integration of lexical, syntactic, and discourse features in bilingual adolescents’ writing: An exploratory approach. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,42, 491–505. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2011/10-0063).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deno, S. L., Marston, D., & Mirkin, P. (1982). Valid measurement procedures for continuous evaluation of written expression. Exceptional Children,48, 368–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devonshire, V., & Fluck, M. (2010). Spelling development: Fine tuning strategy-use and capitalising on the connections between words. Learning and Instruction,20, 361–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, D. K., McGabe, A., Anastasopoulos, L., Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., & Poe, M. D. (2003). The comprehensive language approach to early literacy: The interrelationships among vocabulary, phonological sensitivity, and print knowledge among preschool-aged children. Journal of Educational Psychology,95, 465–481. https://doi.org/10.1037/00220663.95.3.465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dockrell, J. E., Connelly, W., & Critten, S. (2015). Assessing children’s writing productss: The role of curriculum based measures. British Educational Research Journal,41(4), 575–595. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dockrell, J. E., Ricketts, J., Charman, T., & Lindsay, G. (2014). Exploring writing products in students with language impairments and autism spectrum disorders. Learning and Instruction,32, 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.01.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2008). The peabody picture vocabulary test (4th ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, S. L., & Guo, L. (2013). Differentiating children with and without language impairment based on grammaticality. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,44, 20–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fey, M. E., Catts, H. W., Proctor-Williams, K., Tomblin, J. B., & Zhang, X. (2004). Oral and written story composition skills of children with language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,47(6), 1301–1318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist,35, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3501_5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gansle, K. A., Noell, G. H., VanDerHeyden, A. M., Naquin, G. M., & Slider, N. J. (2002). Moving beyond total words written: The reliability, criterion validity, and time cost of alternate measures for curriculum-based measurement in writing. School Psychology Review,31, 477–497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillam, R., & Johnston, J. (1992). Spoken and written language relationships in language/learning-impaired and normally achieving school-age children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,35, 1303–1315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. (2018). A revised writer(s)-within-community model of writing. Educational Psychologist,53(4), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1481406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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,9(1), 170–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, L., & Ginther, A. (2000). Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences. Journal of Second Language Writing,9(2), 123–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J. L., & Cox, K. E. (1999). Motivational and cognitive predictors of text comprehension and reading amount. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3), 231–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall-Mills, S., & Apel, K. (2013). Narrative and expository writing of adolescents with language learning disabilities: A pilot study. Communication Disorders Quarterly,34, 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740112465001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, G., Goegan, L., Jalbert, R., McManus, K., Sinclair, K., & Spurling, J. (2016). Predictors of spelling and writing skills in first- and second-language learners. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,29, 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9580-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, S. (2002). Topic continuity in L2 English article use. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(3), 387–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, J., Johnson, E., & Hileman, J. (2004). When is reading also writing: Sources of individual differences on the new reading performance assessments. Scientific Studies of Reading,8, 125–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. S. G., & Park, S. H. (2019). Unpacking pathways using the direct and indirect effects model of writing (DIEW) and the contributions of higher order cognitive skills to writing. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,32, 1319–1341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9913-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. S. G., Park, C., & Park, Y. (2015). Dimensions of discourse level oral language skills and their relation to reading comprehension and written composition: An exploratory study. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,28(5), 633–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., & Schatschneider, C. (2016). Expanding the developmental models of writing: A direct and indirect effects model of developmental writing (DIEW). Journal of Educational Psychology,109(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koutsoftas, A. (2016). Writing process products in intermediate-grade children with and without language-based learning disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 59, 1471–1483. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_JSLHR-L-15-0133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koutsoftas, A. D., & Gray, S. (2013). A structural equation model of the writing process in typically-developing sixth grade children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,26, 941–966. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9399-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackie, C., & Dockrell, J. E. (2004). The nature of written language deficits in children with SLI. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,47, 1469–1483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malecki, C. K., & Jewell, J. (2003). Developmental, gender, and practical considerations in scoring curriculum-based measurement writing probes. Psychology in the Schools,40(4), 379–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malvern, D., Richards, B., Chipere, N., & Durán, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment. Hapshire, NY: Palgrave Macmillon.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Masterson, J., & Apel, K. (2013). Monitoring progress in spelling improvement. Perspectives on Language Learning and Education, 20(4), 140–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marston, D. B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), The Guilford school practitioner series. Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18–78). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMaster, K., & Espin, C. (2007). Technical features of curriculum-based measurement in writing. The Journal of Special Education,41(2), 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669070410020301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. (1995). The Thomas theorem and the Matthew effect. Social Forces,74(2), 379–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. F., Andriacchi, K., & Nockerts, A. (2015). Assessing language production using SALT software: A clinician’s guide to language sample analysis. Middleton, WI: SALT Software LLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. F., & Iglesias, A. (2010). Systematic analysis of language transcripts (SALT), English & Spanish (Version XX) [Computer software]. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Madison, Waisman Center, Language Analysis Laboratory.

  • Miller, B., & McCardle, P. (2011). Reflections on the need for continued research on writing. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,24, 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9267-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., & Hibel, J. (2008). Matthew effects for whom? Learning Disability Quarterly,31, 187–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Institute of education sciences, U.S. Department of Education. The nation’s report card: Writing 2011 (NCES 2012-470). Retrieved from: https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/writing_2011/g12_national.aspx.

  • Olinghouse, N. G., & Leaird, J. T. (2009). The relationship between measures of vocabulary and narrative writing quality in second- and fourth-grade students. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,22(5), 545–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-008-9124-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. Precursors of Functional Literacy,11, 67–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfost, M., Hattie, J., Dorfler, T., & Artelt, C. (2014). Individual differences in reading development: A review of 25 years of empirical research on Matthew effects in reading. Review of Educational Research,84(2), 203–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, J. R., & Jackson, S. C. (2015). Procedures for obtaining and analyzing writing samples of school-age children and adolescents. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,46, 277–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prifitera, A., Weiss, L., Saklofske, D., & Rolfhus, E. (2005). The WISC-4 in clinical-assessment context. In A. Prifiteria, D. Saklofske, & L. Wiss (Eds.), WISC IV clinical use and interpretation. Scientist-practitioner perspectives (p. 3). New York, NY: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puranik, C. S., Lombardino, L. J., & Altman, L. J. P. (2008). Assessing the microstructure of written language using a retelling paradigm. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology,17, 107–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quick, N., & Erickson, K. (2018). A multilingisic approach to evaluating student spelling in writing samples. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,49(3), 509–523. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-17_0095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rigney, D. (2010). The Matthew effect: How advantage begets further advantage. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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), 324–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. 83–95). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, B. D., & Bashir, A. S. (2004). Developmental variations in writing composition skills. In C. AddisonStone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (p. 559). New York, NY: Guildford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, R. K., Puranik, C. S., Foorman, B., Foster, E., Wilson, L. G., Tschinkel, E., et al. (2011). Modeling the development of written language. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,24, 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9266-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walberg, H. J., & Tsai, S. L. (1983). Matthew effects in education. American Educational Research Journal,20, 359–373. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028120200003359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wechsler, D. (2005). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIATT-II). London: Pearson; Harcourt Assessments.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiig, E. H., Secord, W. A., & Semel, E. (2013). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals: CELF-5. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. T. (2007). EVT-2: Expressive vocabulary test (2nd ed.). Mineapolis, MN: Pearson Assessments.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windsor, J., Scott, C. M., & Street, C. K. (2000). Verb and noun morphology in the spoken and written language of children with language learning disabilities. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research,43(6), 1322–1336. https://doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4306.1322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, C. L., Bustamante, K. N., Schatschneider, C., & Hart, S. (2018). Relationship between children’s lexical diversity in written narratives and performance on a standardized reading vocabulary measure. Assessment for Effective Intervention,44(3), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508417749872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, C., Schatschneider, C., & Hart, S. (2017). Grade level expectations in lexical measures and accuracy of written narrative samples. Journal of Child Language Acquisition and Development,5(2), 127–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeung, P. S., Ho, C., Chan, D., & Chung, K. (2013). Modeling the relationships between cognitive linguistic skills and writing in Chinese among elementary grade students. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,26(7), 1195–1221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-94116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, G. (2009). Lexical diversity in writing and speaking task performances. Applied Linguistics,31, 236–259. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp02.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a grant of the Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education, R305A170203. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Communication Science and Disorders, Florida State University, 201 W. Bloxham, Tallahassee, FL, 32306-1200, USA

    Carla Wood

  2. Psychology and Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University, 11107 W. Call Street, Tallahassee, FL, 32306-4301, USA

    Christopher Schatschneider

  3. Department of Special Education, Vanderbilt University, 110 Magnolia Circle, Nashville, TN, 37203, USA

    Jeanne Wanzek

Authors
  1. Carla Wood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christopher Schatschneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeanne Wanzek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carla Wood.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wood, C., Schatschneider, C. & Wanzek, J. Matthew effects in writing productivity during second grade. Read Writ 33, 1377–1398 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-10001-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-10001-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation