Skip to main content

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

Reading and Writing volume 31, pages 1591–1618 (2018)Cite this article

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.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. The similarities that reading and writing draw on do not indicate that reading and writing are the same or a single construct (Kim & Graham, 2018). Instead, reading and writing differ in demands and thus, in the extent to which they draw on resources. Spelling places greater demands on memory for accurate recall of word specific spelling patterns than does word reading, and word reading and spelling are not likely the same constructs (see Ehri, 2000 for a review; but see Kim et al., 2015a, b; Mehta, Foorman, Branum-Martin, & Taylor, 2005). Written composition is also a more self-directed process than reading comprehension, and thus, is likely to draw on self-regulation to a greater extent than for reading comprehension (Kim & Graham, 2018).

  2. There is a dip in sample size in Grade 4. This was primarily because a few schools’ decision not to participate in the study during that year with changes in the leadership.

  3. An alternative model tested a covariance between reading comprehension and written composition initial status, resulting in a .67 correlation between the constructs.

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, 478–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to reading: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bamberg, B. (1983). What makes a text coherent? College Composition and Communication, 34, 417–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21, 230–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (1999). Inference ability and its relation to comprehension failure in young children. Reading and Writing, 11, 489–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of Reading Development. New York: McGraw-Hill.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conners, F. A. (2009). Attentional control and the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 591–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cromley, J., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 311–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 422–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehri, L. C. (2000). Learning to read and learning to spell: Two sides of a coin. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(3), 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 39–50.

    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, 89, 170–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Hayes, J. R., & Chenoweth, N. A. (2007). Working memory in an editing task. Written Communication, 24, 283–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y.-S., & Phillips, B. (2014). Cognitive correlates of listening comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 49, 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y.-S. G., & Graham, S. (2018). Integrating reading and writing: Interactive dynamic literacy model. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lervag, A., & Hulme, C. (2010). Predicting the growth of early spelling skills: Are there heterogeneous developmental trajectories? Scientific Studies of Reading, 14, 485–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McArdle, J. J. (2009). Latent variable modeling of differences and changes with longitudinal data. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 577–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • McGrew, K. S., Schrank, F. A., & Woodcock, R. W. (2007). Technical manual: Woodcock–Johnson III normative update. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meredith, W., & Tisak, J. (1990). Latent curve analysis. Psychometrika, 55, 107–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, B., & Muthén, L. (1998–2013). Mplus user’s guide, 7th Ed. Los Angeles, CA.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (2011). 6 + 1 trait writing. Retrieved from http://educationnorthwest.org/traits.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., & Ghatala, E. S. (1990). Self-regulated learning: Monitoring learning from text. Educational Psychologist, 25, 19–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raftery, A. E. (1995). Baysian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111–163.

    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. 171–183). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 360–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treiman, R. (1993). Beginning to spell: A study of first-grade children. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wechsler, D. (2009). Wechsler individual achievement test (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock–Johnson III tests of achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California Irvine, 3200 Education Building, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA

    Young-Suk Grace Kim

  2. Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA

    Yaacov Petscher

  3. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA

    Jeanne Wanzek

  4. Southern Methodist University, Dallas, USA

    Stephanie Al Otaiba

Authors
  1. Young-Suk Grace Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yaacov Petscher
    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

  4. Stephanie Al Otaiba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Young-Suk Grace Kim.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4 Unstandardized model coefficients for passage comprehension and writing structural equation model
Full size table
Table 5 Unstandardized model coefficients for word reading and spelling structural equation model
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, YS.G., Petscher, Y., Wanzek, J. et al. Relations between reading and writing: a longitudinal examination from grades 3 to 6. Read Writ 31, 1591–1618 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9855-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9855-4

Keywords

  • Reading
  • Writing
  • Developmental trajectories
  • Spelling
  • Interactive dynamic literacy model