Skip to main content

Interactive Dynamic Literacy Model: An Integrative Theoretical Framework for Reading-Writing Relations

Part of the Literacy Studies book series (LITS,volume 19)

Abstract

I propose an integrative theoretical framework for reading and writing acquisition, called the interactive dynamic literacy model, after reviewing theoretical models of reading and writing, and recent efforts in integrating theoretical models within reading and writing, respectively. The central idea of the interactive dynamic literacy model is that reading and writing are inter-related, developing together, largely due to a shared constellation of skills and knowledge. Four core hypotheses of the interactive dynamic literacy model include (1) hierarchical structure of component skills with direct and indirect relations; (2) interactive relations between component skills, and between reading and writing; (3) co-morbidity of reading and writing difficulties; and (4) dynamic relations (relations change as a function of development, learner characteristics, and reading and writing measurement). Implications and future work are discussed.

Keywords

  • Interactive dynamic literacy model
  • Reading
  • Writing
  • Integration
  • Shared knowledge

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-38811-9_2
  • Chapter length: 24 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-38811-9
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 2.1
Fig. 2.2
Fig. 2.3
Fig. 2.4
Fig. 2.5
Fig. 2.6

Notes

  1. 1.

    The term, text, is often mistaken to mean only ‘written’ text. However, text includes both oral and written texts. This clarification is relevant to the discussion of theoretical models of writing because, for instance, in the not-so-simple view of writing, text generation refers to generating ideas and representing those in oral language. If it referred to written texts, the transcription component skill would be redundant or unnecessary.

  2. 2.

    Figure 2.5 includes text level fluency (text/oral reading fluency and text writing fluency) as a partial bridge between the pillars and discourse literacy skills. Theoretical and empirical details of text level fluency is beyond the scope of this chapter, but see Kim et al. (2018a, b) for text writing fluency and Kuhn et al. (2010) and Kim and Wagner (2015) for oral/text reading fluency.

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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Adlof, S. M., Catts, H. W., & Little, T. D. (2006). Should the simple view of reading include a fluency component? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19 , 933–958.

    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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmed, Y., Francis, D. J., York, M., Fletcher, J. M., Barnes, M., & Kulesz, P. (2016). Validation of the direct and inferential mediation (DIME) model of reading comprehension in grades 7 through 12. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44–45, 68–82.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Alves, R. A., Limpo, T., Fidalgo, R., Carvalhais, L., Pereira, L. A. L., & Castro, S. L. (2016). The impact of promoting transcription on early text production: Effects on bursts and pauses, levels of written language, and writing performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 665–679.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Babayiğit, S., & Stainthorp, R. (2010). Component processes of early reading, spelling, and narrative writing skills in Turkish: A longitudinal study. Reading and Writing, 23, 539–568.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. D. (2010). Discourse-level oral language, 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    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: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. W., Vaughn, K. B., Graham, S., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., Rogan, L. W., Brooks, A., & Reed, E. (1997). Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers: Transfer from handwriting to composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 652–666.

    CrossRef  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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. W., Nielson, K. H., Abbott, R. D., Wijsman, E., & Raskind, W. (2008a). Writing problems in developmental dyslexia: Under-recognized and under-treated. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 1–21.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V., Raskind, W., Richards, T., Abbott, R., & Stock, P. (2008b). A multidisciplinary approach to understanding developmental dyslexia within working-memory architecture: Genotypes, phenotypes, brain, and instruction. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33, 707–744.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdin, B., & Fayol, M. (1994). Is written language production more difficult than oral language production? A working memory approach. International Journal of Psychology, 29, 591–620.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, K. (2009). Making sense of text: Skills that support text comprehension and its development. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, Spring, 11–14.

    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.

    CrossRef  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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Coker, D. L. (2006). Impact of first-grade factors on the growth and outcomes of urban schoolchildren’s primary-grade writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 471–488.

    CrossRef  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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.311.

  • Cromley, J. G., Snyder-Hogan, L. E., & Luciw-Dubas, U. A. (2010). Reading comprehension of scientific text: A domain-specific test of the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 687–700.

    CrossRef  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 on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 277–299.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ehri, L., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., & Willows, D. M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read. Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 393–447.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Florit, E., & Cain, K. (2011). The simple view of reading: Is it valid for different types of alphabetic orthographies? Educational Psychology Review, 23, 553–576.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Florit, E., Roch, M., & Levorato, M. C. (2011). Listening text comprehension of explicit and implicit information in preschoolers: The role of verbal and inferential skills. Discourse Processes, 48, 119–138.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Florit, E., Roch, M., & Levorato, M. C. (2014). Listening text comprehension in preschoolers: A longitudinal study on the role of semantic components. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27, 793–817.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foorman, B. R., Koon, S., Petscher, Y., Mitchell, A., & Truckenmiller, A. (2015). Examining general and specific factors in the dimensionality of oral language and reading in 4th and 10th grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 884–899.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1990). The role of phonological memory in vocabulary acquisition: A study of young children learning new names. British Journal of Psychology, 81, 439–454.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371–395.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 3–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Hebert, M. A. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. A Carnegie corporation time to act report. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    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.

    CrossRef  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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 879–896.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Liu, X., Bartlett, B., Ng, C., Harris, K. R., Aitken, A., Barkel, A., Kavanaugh, C., & Talukdar, J. (2018). Reading for writing: A meta-analysis of the impact of reading interventions on writing. Review of Educational Research, 88, 243–284. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317746927.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29, 369–388.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–29). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

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

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, R. M., Tao, S., Aaron, P. G., & Quiroz, B. (2012). Cognitive component of componential model of reading applied to different orthographies. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 480–486.

    CrossRef  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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Katzir, T., Lesaux, N., & Kim, Y.-S. (2009). Reading self concept and reading comprehension for middle grade elementary school children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9112-8.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Katzir, T., Kim, Y.-S. G., & Dotan, S. (2018). Reading self-concept and reading anxiety in second grade children: The roles of word reading, emergent literacy skills, working memory, and gender. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01180.

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. E. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 57–71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendeou, P., Bohn-Gettler, C., White, M. J., & van den Broek, P. (2008). Children’s inference generation across different media. Journal of Research in Reading, 31(3), 259–272.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2012). Development of morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge in Spanish-speaking language minority learners: A parallel process latent growth curve model. Applied Linguistics, 33, 23–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y.-S. (2010). Componential skills in early spelling development in Korean. Scientific Studies of Reading, 14, 137–158.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y.-S. (2015a). Language and cognitive predictors of text comprehension: Evidence from multivariate analysis. Child Development, 86, 128–144.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y.-S. G. (2015b). Developmental, component-based model of reading fluency: An investigation of word-reading fluency, text-reading fluency, and reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 50, 459–481.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y.-S. G. (2016). Direct and mediated effects of language and cognitive skills on comprehension or oral narrative texts (listening comprehension) for children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 141, 101–120.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y.-S. G. (2017a). 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y.-S. G. (2017b). Multicomponent view of vocabulary acquisition: An investigation with primary grade children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 162, 120–133.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y.-S. G. (2020a). Hierarchical and dynamic relations of language and cognitive skills to reading comprehension: Testing the direct and indirect effects model of reading (DIER). Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000407.

  • Kim, Y.-S. G. (2020b). Structural relations of language, cognitive skills, and topic knowledge to written composition: A test of the direct and indirect effects model of writing (DIEW). British Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12330.

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

  • Kim, Y.-S. G., & Petscher, Y. (2016). Prosodic sensitivity and reading: An investigation of pathways of relations using a latent variable approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 630–645. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000078.

  • Kim, Y.-S. G., & Graham, S. (2020). Expanding the direct and indirect effects model of writing (DIEW): Dynamic relations of component skills to writing quality, productivity, fluency. In Manuscript submitted for publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y.-S. G., & Park, S. (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(5), 1319–1343.

    CrossRef  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.

    CrossRef  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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y.-S., Al Otaiba, S., Puranik, C., Sidler, J. F., Greulich, L., & Wagner, R. K. (2011a). Componential skills of beginning writing: An exploratory study. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 517–525.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y.-S., Wagner, R. K., & Foster, E. (2011b). Relations among oral reading fluency, silent reading fluency, and reading comprehension: A latent variable study of first-grade readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 338–362.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y.-S., Al Otaiba, S., Sidler, J. F., & Greulich, L. (2013a). Language, literacy, attentional behaviors, and instructional quality predictors of written composition for first graders. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28, 461–469.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y.-S., Apel, K., & Al Otaiba, S. (2013b). 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y.-S., Al Otaiba, S., Sidler, J. F., Greulich, L., & Puranik, C. (2014). Evaluating the dimensionality of first grade written composition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57, 199–211.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y.-S., Al Otaiba, S., & Wanzek, J. (2015a). Kindergarten predictors of third grade writing. Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.11.009.

    CrossRef  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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y.-S., Al Otaiba, S., Wanzek, J., & Gatlin, B. (2015c). Towards an understanding of dimension, predictors, and gender gaps in written composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 79–95.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y.-S. G., Gatlin, B., Al Otaiba, S., & Wanzek, J. (2018a). Theorization and an empirical investigation of the component-based and developmental writing fluency construct. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(4), 320–335.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y.-S. G., Petscher, Y., Wanzek, J., & Al Otaiba, S. (2018b). Relations between reading and writing: A longitudinal examination from grades 3 to 6. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 31, 1591–1618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9855-4.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, J. R., & Savage, R. S. (2008). Can the simple view of deal with the complexities of reading? Literacy, 42, 75–82.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Meisinger, E. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 232–253.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Langer, J. A., & Flihan, S. (2000). Writing and reading relationships: Constructive tasks. In R. Indrisano & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Writing: Research/theory/practice (pp. 112–129). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lepola, J., Lynch, J., Laakkonen, E., Silvén, M., & Niemi, P. (2012). The role of inference making and other language skills in the development of narrative discourse-level oral language in 4- to 6-year old children. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 259–282.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Limpo, T., & Alves, R. A. (2013). Modeling writing development: Contribution of transcription and self-regulation to Portuguese students’ text generation quality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 401–413.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mar, R. A., Tackett, J. L., & Moore, C. (2010). Exposure to media and theory-of-mind development in preschoolers. Cognitive Development, 25, 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2009.11.002.

  • McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model for comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 297–384). New York, NY: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nation, K., Cocksey, J., Taylor, J., & Bishop, D. (2010). A longitudinal investigation of the early language and reading skills in children with reading comprehension impairment. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 51, 1031–1039.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. In C. E. Snow, M. S. Burns, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Commission on behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakhill, J. V., Cain, K., & Bryant, P. E. (2003). The dissociation of word reading and text comprehension: Evidence from component skills. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 443–468.

    CrossRef  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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Olinghouse, N., & Graham, S. (2009). The relationship between the writing knowledge and the writing performance of elementary-grade students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013462.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Oullette, G. P. (2006). What’s meaning got to do with it: The role of vocabulary in word reading and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 554–566.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, P., Barnes, M., Wang, C., Wang, W., Li, S., Swanson, H. L., Dardick, W., & Tao, S. (2018). A meta-analysis on the relation between reading and working memory. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 48–76.

    CrossRef  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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., Duke, N. K., Gaskins, I. W., Fingeret, L., Halladay, J., Hilden, K., et al. (2009). Working with struggling readers: Why we must get beyond the simple view of reading and visions of how it might be done. In T. B. Gutkin & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (4th ed., pp. 522–546). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puranik, C. S., Lombardino, L., & Altmann, L. (2006). Writing through retellings: An exploratory study of language-impaired and dyslexic populations. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 20, 251–272.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, J., Wagner, R., Petscher, Y., Roberts, G., Menzel, A. J., & Schatschneider, C. (2019). Differential codevelopment of vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension for students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000382.

  • Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Carlson, C., & Foorman, B. R. (2004). Kindergarten prediction of reading skills: A longitudinal comparative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 265–282.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143–174.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, T. (2006). Relations among oral language, reading, and writing development. In C. A. MacArthur & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of writing (pp. 171–183). New York: 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, R. D., Coker, D., Proctor, C. P., Harring, J., Piantedosi, K. W., & Hartranft, A. M. (2015). The relationship between language skills and writing outcomes for linguistically diverse students in upper elementary school. The Elementary School Journal, 116(1), 103–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica: RAND.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strasser, K., & del Rio, F. (2014). The role of, theory of mind, and vocabulary depth in predicting story comprehension and recall of kindergarten children. Reading Research Quarterly, 49, 169–187.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Tompkins, V., Guo, Y., & Justice, L. M. (2013). Inference generation, story comprehension, and language in the preschool years. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26, 403–429.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Treiman, R. (1993). Beginning to spell. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, R. K., Puranik, C. S., Foorman, B., Foster, E., Tschinkel, E., & Kantor, P. T. (2011). Modeling the development of written language. Reading and Writing, 24, 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9266-7.

  • Wysocki, K., & Jenkins, J. R. (1987). Deriving word meanings through morphological generalization. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 66–81.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This chapter was supported by Grants R305A130131, R305A170113 and R305C190007 from the Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education as well as P50 HD052120 and 2P50HD052120 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agency. The author wishes to thank student participants, school personnel, and research staff for their contributions to building our knowledge about reading and writing development.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Young-Suk Grace Kim .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kim, YS.G. (2020). Interactive Dynamic Literacy Model: An Integrative Theoretical Framework for Reading-Writing Relations. In: Alves, R., Limpo, T., Joshi, R. (eds) Reading-Writing Connections. Literacy Studies, vol 19. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38811-9_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38811-9_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-38810-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-38811-9

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)