Skip to main content

Writing proficiency level and writing development of low-achieving adolescents: the roles of linguistic knowledge, fluency, and metacognitive knowledge

Abstract

In a longitudinal design, 51 low-achieving adolescents’ development in writing proficiency from Grades 7 to 9 was measured. There were 25 native-Dutch and 26 language-minority students. In addition, the roles of (1) linguistic knowledge, (2) metacognitive knowledge, and (3) linguistic fluency in predicting both the level and development of writing proficiency were assessed. Low-achieving students improved in writing proficiency, the language-minority students more so than the native-Dutch students. Regarding the level of writing proficiency, individual differences between low achieving adolescents could be accounted for by receptive vocabulary, grammatical knowledge, and speed of sentence verification, suggesting that these are important components in low-achieving adolescents’ writing. Regarding development in writing proficiency, grammatical knowledge predicted variation between low-achieving students. Explanations and educational implications of these findings are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    At the time of this study this aptitude test was obligatorily administered in primary schools at the end of grade 6 and was largely decisive for the secondary track that each individual student would take (roughly: prevocational, higher general secondary education and pre-academic education).

  2. 2.

    We accepted two exceptions to this rule. Two native-Dutch students have one parent born outside the Netherlands. We decided to include these students after verifying that Dutch is the only language spoken at home for these students.

  3. 3.

    In the Netherlands, most of the secondary-school students from immigrant backgrounds are from the second generation Turkish and Moroccan immigrants. In general, their families have low socioeconomic status, low level of education and low levels of professional training (CBS, 2012; Tesser & Iedema, 2001). At home, the language spoken by their parents is often the ethnic group language, although Dutch may be used beside this home language. Outside the domestic environment, for example, at school, Dutch is the language that is primarily used.

  4. 4.

    Twelve students dropped out of the study for different reasons (chronical illness, change of school and the burden of the requirements of research participation). t tests showed no significant difference on any of the measured variables between the students dropping out and the remaining students in our sample.

  5. 5.

    These writing assignments were pretested with students in the prevocational tracks (grade 7 and 9) together with three other assignments in order to select the ones that appeared to be the best prompts for the students in both ages.

  6. 6.

    For the purpose of another study not only the selected students within each class, but also their classmates produced texts on the writing assignments (N = 199).

  7. 7.

    For the vocabulary test and for all following tests, items were selected from the previous studies by deleting the items that were regarded too difficult for the group of low-achieving students.

  8. 8.

    Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the typing speed test were .96 (Grade 7), .94 (Grade 8) and .95 (Grade 9).

  9. 9.

    During the 3 years of the longitudinal study students spread into diverse classes. In the analysis we chose to use the categories based on in which class they were in the first year of the study.

  10. 10.

    Coded as 0 (Grade 7), 1 (Grade 8), and 2 (Grade 9).

  11. 11.

    Coded as 0 (native-Dutch students) and 1 (language-minority students).

  12. 12.

    Improvement is also present between Grade 7 and 8 (Z = 4.38, p < .001) as indicated in the Time of measurement (2) row in Table 2. An additional analysis indicates that there is growth between Grade 8 and Grade 9 (Z = 1.99, p < .05) as well.

References

  1. Aarts, R., & Verhoeven, L. (1999). Literacy attainment in a second language submersion context. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716499003033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 to 7. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 281–298. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alamargot, D., & Fayol, M. (2009). Modelling the development of written composition. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, M. Nystrand, & J. Riley (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of writing development (pp. 23–48). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Alderson, J. C. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: A reading or a language problem? In J. C. Alderson & A. H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 1–24). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Alliance for Excellent Education. (2006). 2006 alliance annual report. Seattle: Alliance for Excellent Education.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Applebee, A. (2000). Alternative models of writing development. In R. Indrisano & J. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on writing: Research, theory and practice (pp. 99–110). Newark, DE: International Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ball, S. E. (2003). The relation between reading and writing development in English and ESL students. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.

  8. Baumert, J., Klieme, E., Neubrand, M., Prenzel, M., Schiefele, U., Schneider, W., et al. (2001). PISA 2000. Basiskompetenzen von Schülerinnen und Schülern im internationalen Vergleich.

  9. Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2009). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? Which genre? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9107-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Berman, R., Nayditz, R., & Ravid, D. (2011). Linguistic diagnostics of written texts in two school-age populations. Written Language and Literacy, 14(2), 161–187. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.14.2.01ber.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bernhardt, E. B. (2000). Second-language reading as a case study of reading scholarship in the 20th century. In P. B. Mosenthal, M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 791–811). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Berninger, V. W. (1999). Coordinating transcription and text generation in working memory during composing: Automatic and constructive processes. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 22(2), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Swanson, H. L., Lovitt, D., Trivedi, P., Shin-Ju, L., et al. (2010). Relationship of word- and sentence-level working memory to reading and writing in second, fourth, and sixth grade. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41, 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2009/08-0002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Berninger, V., Cartwright, A., Yates, C., Swanson, H. L., & Abbott, R. (1994). Developmental skills related to writing and reading acquisition in the intermediate grades: Shared and unique variance. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, 161–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01026911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Berninger, V. W., & Swanson, H. L. (1994). Modifying Hayes and Flower’s model of skilled writing to explain beginning and developing writing. In E. C. Butterfield (Ed.), Advances in cognition and educational practice: Children’s writing: Toward a process theory of the development of skilled writing (Vol. 2, pp. 57–81). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Berninger, V., Whitaker, D., Feng, Y., Swanson, H. L., & Abbott, R. (1996). Assessment of planning, translating, and revising in junior high writers. Journal of School Psychology, 34, 23–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4405(95)00024-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Blok, H. (1986). Essay rating by the comparison method. Tijdschrift voor onderwijsresearch, 11, 169–176.

    Google Scholar 

  19. CBS. (2004). Onderwijs en schoolkleur. In O. Swertz, P. Duimelaar & J. Thijssen (Eds.), Allochtonen in Nederland. Voorburg: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek.

  20. CBS. (2010). Jaarboek onderwijs in cijfers 2010. Heerlen: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek.

    Google Scholar 

  21. CBS. (2012). Jaarrapport Integratie 2012. Heerlen: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18, 80–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018001004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Christensen, C. A. (2004). Relationships between orthographic-motor integration and computer use for the production of creative and well-structured written text. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 551–564. https://doi.org/10.1348/0007099042376373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Crossley, S. A., Weston, J. L., McLain Sullivan, S. T., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). The development of writing proficiency as a function of grade level: A linguistic analysis. Written Communication, 28(3), 282–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088311410188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Tracking the unique effects of print exposure in children: Associations with vocabulary, general knowledge, and spelling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 264–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.2.264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Dagevos, J., Gijsberts, M., & Van Praag, C. (2003). Rapportage Minderheden 2003. The Hague: Sociaal Planbureau.

    Google Scholar 

  27. De Milliano, I., Van Gelderen, A., & Sleegers, P. (2012). Patterns of cognitive self-regulation of adolescent struggling writing. Written Communication, 29(3), 302–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312450275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Deane, P., Odendahl, N., Quinlan, T., Fowles, M., Welsh, C., & Bivens-Tatum, J. (2008). Cognitive models of writing: Writing proficiency as a complex integrated skills. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Devonshire, V., & Fluck, M. (2010). Spelling development: Fine-tuning strategy-use and capitalising on the connections between words. Learning and Instruction, 20(5), 361–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Dutch Education Inspectorate. (2008). Basisvaardigheden taal in het voortgezet onderwijs. Resultaten van een inspectieonderzoek naar taalvaardigheid in de onderbouw van het vmbo en praktijkonderwijs. Utrecht: Inspectie van het Onderwijs.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Dutch Education Inspectorate. (2012). Focus op schrijven. Het onderwijs in het schrijven van teksten (stellen). Utrecht: Inspectie van het Onderwijs.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Elley, W. B. (1992). How in the world do students read. The Hague: IEA.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Engber, C. A. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(2), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(95)90004-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Farnia, F., & Geva, E. (2011). Cognitive correlates of vocabulary growth in English language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 711–738. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Fayol, M. (1991). Stories: A psycholinguistic and ontogenetic approach to the acquisition of narrative abilities. In G. Piéraut le Bonniec & M. Dolitsky (Eds.), From basic language to discourse bases (pp. 229–244). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Fayol, M. (1999). From on-line management problems to strategies in written composition. In M. Torrance & G. Jeffery (Eds.), The cognitive demands of writing (pp. 15–23). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Fearn, L., & Farnan, N. (2007). When is a verb? Using functional grammar to teach writing. Journal of Basic Writing, 26(1), 63–87.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365–387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Catts, H. W., & Tomblin, J. B. (2005). Dimensions affecting the assessment of reading comprehension. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 369–394). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  40. García, G. E. (1991). Factors influencing the English reading test performance of Spanish-speaking Hispanic children. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 371–392. https://doi.org/10.2307/747894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Geva, E., & Genesee, F. (2006). First-language oral proficiency and second-language literacy. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth (pp. 185–196). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. An applied linguistic perspective. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 457–478). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Graham, S., Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., & Whitaker, D. (1997). Role of mechanics in composing elementary school students: A new methodological approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 170–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Graham, S., Berninger, V., Weintraub, N., & Schafer, W. (1998). Development in handwriting speed and legibility in grades 1–9. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(1), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220679809597574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(2), 207–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/jcedpsych.2004.08.01.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Graham, S., & Santangelo, T. (2014). Does spelling instruction make students better spellers, readers, and writers? A meta-analytic review. Reading and Writing, 27, 1703–1743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9517-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Graham, S., Schwartz, S., & McArthur, C. (1993). Knowledge of writing and the composing process, attitude toward writing, and self-efficacy for students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949302600404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Greenwald, E. A., Persky, H. R., Campbell, J. R., & Mazzeo, J. (1999). NAEP 1998 writing report card for the nation and the states. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  51. 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: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Hayes, J. R. (2006). New directions in writing theory. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 28–40). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29(3), 369–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312451260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Hazenberg, S., & Hulstijn, J. H. (1996). Defining a minimal receptive second-language vocabulary for non-native university students: An empirical investigation. Applied Linguistics, 17, 145–163. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.2.145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Hofman, R. H., Spijkerboer, A. W., & Timmermans, A. C. (2009). Ervaren deficiënties door havo en mbo-opleidingen in de basisbagage van vmbo’ers. Studie uitgevoerd door Gronings Instituut voor Onderzoek van Onderwijs in opdracht van de Onderwijsraad. The Hague: Onderwijsraad.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Holliway, D., & McCutchen, D. (2004). Audience perspective in young writers’ composing and revising. In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 87–101). Boston: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  58. Hoogeveen, M., & Van Gelderen, A. (2015). Effects of peer response using genre knowledge on writing quality: A classroom experiment. The Elementary School Journal, 116(2), 265–290. https://doi.org/10.1086/684129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Houck, C. K., & Billingsley, B. S. (1989). Written expression of students with and without learning disabilities: Differences across the grades. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 561–575. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221948902200908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Hulstijn, J. H. (2015). Language proficiency in native and non-native speakers: Theory and research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  62. Johansson, V. (2009). Developmental aspects of text production in writing and speech. Doctoral dissertation, Lund University.

  63. 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 

  64. Juzwik, M. M., Curcic, S., Wolbers, K., Moxley, K. D., Dimling, L. M., & Shankland, R. K. (2006). Writing into the 21st century. An overview of research on writing, 1999 to 2004. Written Communication, 23(4), 451–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088306291619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Kellogg, R. T. (1999). Components of working memory in writing. In M. Torrance & G. Jeffery (Eds.), Cognitive demands of writing (pp. 43–61). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Keuning, J., & Verhoeven, L. (2008). Spelling development throughout the elementary grades: The Dutch case. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 459–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Kieffer, M. J. (2008). Catching up or falling behind? Initial English proficiency, concentrated poverty, and the reading growth of language minority learners in the United States. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 851–868. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.4.851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Klassen, R. (2002). Writing in early adolescence: A review of the role of self-efficacy beliefs. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 173–203. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014626805572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Kuhlemeier, H., Van Til, A., Feenstra, H., & Hemker, B. (2013). Balans van de schrijfvaardigheid in het basis- en speciaal basisonderwijs 2 (PON series, 53). Arnhem: Cito.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Kuhlemeier, H., Van Til, A., & Van den Bergh, H. (2014). Schrijfvaardigheid Nederlands vergeleken met de referentieniveaus: een verkenning. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 15(2), 37–46.

    Google Scholar 

  71. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341042000271782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Lesaux, N. K., & Kieffer, M. J. (2010). Exploring sources of reading comprehension difficulties among language minority learners and their classmates in early adolescence. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 596–632. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209355469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Limpo, T., & Alves, R. A. (2013). Modelling writing development: Contribution of transcription and self-regulation to Portugese students’ text generation quality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Lloyd-Jones, R. (1977). Primary trait scoring. In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing: Describing, measuring, judging (pp. 33–66). Urbana, IL: NCTE.

    Google Scholar 

  75. McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 299–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01464076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. McCutchen, D. (2000). Knowledge, processing, and working memory: Implications for a theory of writing. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3501_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. McCutchen, D. (2006). Cognitive factors in the development of children’s writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 115–130). New York, NY: Guildford.

    Google Scholar 

  78. McCutchen, D. (2011). From novice to expert: Implications of language skills and writing-relevant knowledge for memory during the development of writing skill. Journal of Writing Research, 3(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2011.03.01.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. McCutchen, D. (2012). Phonological, orthographic, and morphological word-level skills supporting multiple levels of the writing process. In V. W. Berninger (Ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp. 197–216). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Myhill, D. (2008). Towards a linguistic model of sentence development in writing. Language and Education, 22, 271–288. https://doi.org/10.2167/le775.0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Myhill, D., Jones, S. M., Lines, H., & Watson, A. (2012). Rethinking grammar: The impact of embedded grammar teaching on students’ writing and students’ metalinguistic understanding. Research Papers in Education, 27(2), 139–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2011.637640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Nagy, W. E., & Scott, J. A. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 269–284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  83. National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The Nation’s Report Card: Reading. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Niedo, J., Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (2014). Predicting levels of reading and writing achievement in typically developing English-speaking 2nd and 5th graders. Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 54–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.03.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. OECD. (2000). Literacy in the information age. Final report of the international adult literacy survey. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  86. OECD. (2001). Knowledge and skills for life. First results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD.

  87. Perfetti, C. A. (1999). Comprehending written language: A blueprint of the reader. In C. M. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 167–208). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Persky, H. R., Daane, M. C., & Jin, Y. (2003). The nation’s report card: Writing 2002 (NCES 2003–529). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Piolat, A., Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2005). Cognitive effort of note taking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(3), 291–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Quinlan, T. (2004). Speech recognition technology and students with writing difficulties: Improving fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 337–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Rasbash, J., Steele, F., Browne, W. J., & Goldstein, H. (2009). A user’s guide to MLwiN. Version 2.10. Bristol: University of Bristol, Centre for Multilevel Modeling.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Rijlaarsdam, G., Braaksma, M., Couzijn, M., Janssen, T., Kieft, M., Raedts, M., et al. (2009). The role of readers in writing development: Writing students bringing their texts to the test. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley, & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of writing development (pp. 436–452). London: SAGE.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  93. Saddler, B., & Graham, S. (2007). The relationship between writing knowledge and writing performance among more and less skilled writers. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23, 231–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560701277575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Salahu-Din, D., Persky, H., & Miller, J. (2008). The nation’s report card: Writing 2007. Washington: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

    Google Scholar 

  95. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Writing. In R. F. Dillon & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cognition and instruction (pp. 59–81). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  96. 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 knowledge, speed of processing, and metacognitive knowledge. Language Learning, 53, 165–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Schoonen, R., van Gelderen, A., de Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Snellings, P., Simis, A., et al. (2002). Linguistic knowledge, metacognitive knowledge and retrieval speed in L1, L2 and EFL writing; a structural equation modeling approach. In S. Ransdell & M.-L. Barbier (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 101–122). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0363-6_5.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  98. Schoonen, R., Van Gelderen, A., Stoel, R. D., Hulstijn, J., & De Glopper, K. (2011). Modeling the development of L1 and EFL writing proficiency of secondary school students. Language Learning, 61, 31–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00590.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Scott, C. A. (2004). Syntactic contribution to literacy learning. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 340–362). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Smith, C. (2011). Narrative writing in native English and ESL learners: Developmental Trajectories and predictors. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.

  101. Snellings, P., Van Gelderen, A., & De Glopper, K. (2004). The effect of enhanced lexical retrieval on second language writing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 175–200. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716404001092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Soussi, A., Broi, A.-M., Moreau, J., & Wirthner, M. (2004). La Litttératie dans quatre pays francophones. Neuchâtel: IRDP.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Swanborn, M. S. L., & De Glopper, K. (1999). Incidental word learning while reading: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 261–285. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543069003261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Tesser, P. T. M., & Iedema, J. (2001). Rapportage minderheden 2001. The Hague: Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Torrance, M., & Galbraith, D. (2006). The processing demands of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 67–80). New York: Guildford.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Trapman, M., Van Gelderen, A., Van Steensel, R., Van Schooten, E., & Hulstijn, J. (2014). Linguistic knowledge, fluency and meta-cognitive knowledge as components of reading comprehension in adolescent low achievers: differences between monolinguals and bilinguals. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(S1). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01539.x.

  107. Trapman, M., Van Gelderen, A., Van Schooten, E., & Hulstijn, J. (2017). Reading comprehension level and development in native and language minority adolescent low achievers: Roles of linguistic and metacognitive knowledge and fluency. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 33(3), 239–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2016.1183541.

  108. Van Gelderen, A. (1997). Elementary students’ skills in revising; integrating quantitative and qualitative analysis. Written Communication, 14(3), 360–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088397014003003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., De Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., et al. (2003). Roles of linguistic knowledge, metacognitive knowledge and processing speed in L3, L2 and L1 reading comprehension; a structural equation modelling approach. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7, 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069030070010201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, F., De Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., et al. (2004). Linguistic knowledge, processing speed and metacognitive knowledge in first and second language reading comprehension: A componential analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., Stoel, R., De Glopper, K., & Hulstijn, J. (2007). Development of adolescent reading comprehension in Language 1 and Language 2: A longitudinal analysis of constituent components. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 477–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Van Kruistum, C. (2013). Changing engagement of youth in old and new media literacy: Patterns, functions and meanings. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.

  113. Van Steensel, R., Oostdam, R., Van Gelderen, A., & Van Schooten, E. (2016). The role of word decoding, vocabulary knowledge and meta-cognitive knowledge in monolingual and bilingual low-achieving adolescents’ reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 39, 312–329. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Van Steensel, R., Oostdam, R., & Van Gelderen, A. (in prep.). Reliability of task-based writing assessments: Relationships between task-variability and time.

  115. Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Verhoeven, L. (1990). Acquisition of reading in Dutch as a second language. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 90–114. https://doi.org/10.2307/747596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Verhoeven, L., & Van Hell, J. G. (2008). From knowledge representation to writing text: A developmental perspective. Discourse Processes, 45, 387–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530802145734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Verhoeven, L., & Vermeer, A. (1992). Woordenschat van leerlingen in het basis- en MLK-onderwijs. Pedagogische Studiën, 69, 218–234.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding was provided by Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Grant NO. 411-06-503).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mirjam Trapman.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Correlations between writing tasks in Grade 7, 8 and 9. N = 51.

  1. Instructive 2. Argumentative 3. Narrative
Grade 7 correlations
 1. Instructive 1   
 2. Argumentative .36** 1  
 3. Narrative .39** .38** 1
Grade 8 correlations
 1. Instructive 1   
 2. Argumentative .56** 1  
 3. Narrative .27 .41** 1
Grade 9 correlations
 1. Instructive 1   
 2. Argumentative .23 1  
 3. Narrative .41** .17 1

Appendix 2

Results of multilevel analyses. Dependent variable is ‘writing proficiency—repeatedly measured’.

51 students, 10 classes, 3 times of measurement Model 0 Model 1
Variance
 Class   1247.4 (864.8)
 Student 3607.7 (892.6) 2425.9 (734.8)
 Occasion 2575.7 (360.7) 2575.7 (360.7)
 Total 6183.4 6249.0
Distribution of variance
 Class   20.0%
 Student 58.3% 38.8%
 Occasion 41.7% 41.2%
 Intercept 237.9 237.3
Main effects Coef. (SE) Coef. (SE)
Time of measurement 33.3 (5.0) 33.3 (5.0)
Fit (− 2 * loglikelihood) 1719.9 1714.9
 Difference − 2 * loglikelihood   5.0*
 Difference df   1
  1. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Appendix 3

Means and standard deviations for native-Dutch (n = 25) and language-minority (n = 26) students in grades 7, 8 and 9.

  Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9
Native-Dutch Language-minority Native-Dutch Language-minority Native-Dutch Language-minority
Writing proficiency 266.2 (75.4) 203.8 (93.9) 293.7 (76.1) 263.2 (97.1) 307.9 (41.1) 294.4 (65.2
Receptive vocabulary (Max = 73) 54.3 (6.9) 46.0 (7.6) 56.9 (6.6) 48.0 (9.4) 60.5 (3.3) 50.9 (8.5)
Grammatical knowledge (Max = 50) 36.3 (3.8) 31.2 (5.6) 36.6 (4.3) 31.8 (7.2) 38.0 (4.3) 34.4 (4.6)
Orthographic knowledge (Max = 68) 49.9 (4.6) 45.4 (6.0) 50.4 (5.8) 49.3 (6.9) 51.6 (5.1) 48.5 (6.4)
Metacognitive knowledge (Max = 45) 29.2 (3.9) 26.3 (3.9) 30.0 (4.7) 27.2 (4.3) 31.0 (3.5) 29.2 (4.9)
Word recognition (ms) 825.9 (133.1) 842.8 (114.8) 809.5 (121.0) 826.3 (97.2) 738.4 (148.2) 753.7 (143.3)
Lexical retrievala (ms) − 120.2 (269.2) 126.0 (329.7) − 63.1 (196.1) 59.9 (186.9) − 45.9 (152.6) 44.2 (143.3)
Sentence verification (ms) 4063.9 (653.9) 4587.8 (706.8) 3516.3 (690.0) 4103.2 (593.7) 3097.5 (623.5) 3774.8 (628.2)
  1. aScores corrected by typing speed (difference scores)

Appendix 4

Significant effects of background on students’ (N = 51) performance on writing proficiency and the seven independent variables.

  Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9
Writing proficiency *a n.s. n.s.
Receptive vocabulary *** *** ***
Grammatical knowledge ***a **a **a
Orthographic knowledge ** n.s. n.s.a
Metacognitive knowledge ** * n.s.
Word recognition (ms) n.s. n.s. n.s.
Lexical retrieval (ms) ** * *
Sentence verification (ms) ** ** ***
  1. n.s. not significant
  2. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
  3. aWith class level included

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Trapman, M., van Gelderen, A., van Schooten, E. et al. Writing proficiency level and writing development of low-achieving adolescents: the roles of linguistic knowledge, fluency, and metacognitive knowledge. Read Writ 31, 893–926 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9818-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Writing development
  • Literacy
  • Low-achieving adolescents
  • Vocabulary
  • Grammar
  • Fluency
  • Metacognitive knowledge
  • Adolescents