Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Developmental and individual differences in Chinese writing

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 22 December 2012

Abstract

The goal of the present study was to examine the generalizability of a model of the underlying dimensions of written composition across writing systems (Chinese Mandarin vs. English) and level of writing skill. A five-factor model of writing originally developed from analyses of 1st and 4th grade English writing samples was applied to Chinese writing samples obtained from 4th and 7th grade students. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to compare the fits of alternative models of written composition. The results suggest that the five-factor model of written composition generalizes to Chinese writing samples and applies to both less skilled (Grade 4) and more skilled (Grade 7) writing, with differences in factor means between grades that vary in magnitude across factors.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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, 281–298. doi:10.1037/a0019318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alves, R. A., Castro, S. L., Sousa, L., & Stromqvist, S. (2007). Influence of typing skill on pause-execution cycles in written composition. In M. Torrance, L. van Waes, & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Writing and cognition: Research and applications (pp. 55–65).

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. W. (1999). Coordinating transcription and text generation in working memory during composing: Automatic and Constructive Process. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 99–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. (2000). Development of language by hand and its connections to language by ear, mouth, and eye. Topics of Language Disorders, 20, 65–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. (2009). Highlights of programmatic, interdisciplinary research on writing. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 69–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V., & Amtmann, D. (2003). Preventing written expression disabilities through early and continuing assessment and intervention of handwriting and/or spelling problems: Research into practice. In H. L. Swanson, K. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V., & Graham, S. (1998). Language by hand: A synthesis of a decade of research on handwriting. Handwriting Review, 12, 11–25.

    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. C. Buttereld (Ed.), Children’s writing: Toward a process theory of the development of skilled writing (pp. 57–81). Hampton Hill: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bolleny & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chanquoy, L., & Alamargot, D. (2002). Working memory and writing: Evolution of models and assessment of research. Annee Psychologique, 102, 363–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. A. (2005). The role of orthographic-motor integration in the production of creative and well-structured written text for students in secondary school. Educational Psychology, 25, 441–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connelly, V., Campbell, S., MacLean, M., & Barnes, J. (2006). Contribution of lower-order letter and work fluency skills to written composition of college students with and without dyslexia. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 175–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connelly, V., Dockrell, J., & Barnett, J. (2005). The slow handwriting of undergraduate students constrains overall performance in exam essays. Educational Psychology, 25, 99–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connelly, V., & Hurst, G. (2001). The influence of handwriting fluency on writing quality in later primary and early secondary education. Handwriting Today, 2, 50–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coulmas, F. (1991). The writing systems of the world. Oxford & New York: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1995). Dictation: Applications to writing for students with learning disabilities. In T. Scruggs & M. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disorders (Vol. 9, pp. 227–247). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeFrancis, J. (2002). The ideographic myth. In M. S. Erbaugh (Ed.), Difficult characters: Interdisciplinary studies of Chinese and Japanese writing (pp. 1–20). Columbus, OH: National East Asian Language Resource Center, Ohio State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dockrell, J., Lindsay, G., & Connelly, V. (2009). The impact of specific language impairment on adolescents’ written text. Exceptional Children, 75, 427–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fayol, M., Alamargot, D., & Berninger, V. (Eds.) (in press). Translation of thought to written text while composing: Advancing theory, knowledge, methods, and application. New York: Psychology Press.

  • Graham, S. (1990). The role of production factors in learning disabled students’ compositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 781–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Abbott, S., & Whitaker, D. (1997). The role of mechanics in composing of elementary school students: A new methodological approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 170–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2009). Almost 30 years of writing research: Making sense of it all with The Wrath of Khan. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 58–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greg, L., & Steinberg, R. (1982). Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grigorenko, E. L., Mambrino, E., & Priess, D. D. (Eds.). (2011). Writing: A mosaic of new perspectives. New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guan, C. Q., Liu, Y., Chan, D. H. L., & Perfetti, C. A. (2011). Writing strengthens orthography and alphabetic-coding strengthens phonology in learning to read Chinese. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 509–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J., & 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 

  • Hoosain, R. (1991). Psycholinguistic implications for linguistic relativity: A case study of Chinese. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, S. R., Costa, L.-J. C., McBee, M., Anderson, K. L., & Yerby, D. C. (2011). Concurrent and longitudinal neuropsychological contributors to written language expression in first and second grade students. Reading and Writing, 24, 221–252.

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., Bentler, P. M., & Kano, Y. (1992). Can test statistics in covariance structure analysis be trusted? Psychological Bulletin, 112, 351–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ju, D., & Jackson, N. E. (1995). Graphic and phonological processing in Chinese character identification. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27, 299–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellog, R. T. (2001). Competition for working memory among writing processes. The American Journal of Psychology, 114, 175–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellog, R. T. (2004). Working memory components in written sentence generation. The American Journal of Psychology, 117, 341–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 283–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leck, K. J., Weekes, B. S., & Chen, M. J. (1995). Visual and phonological pathways to the lexicon: Evidence from Chinese readers. Memory and Cognition, 23, 468–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, C. M., & Ransdell, S. (Eds.). (1996). The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, D., McBride-Chang, C., Shu, H., Zhang, Y., Li, H., Zhang, J., et al. (2010). Small wins big: Analytic Pinyin skills promote Chinese word reading. Psychological Science, 21, 1117–1122. doi:10.1177/0956797610375447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lui, H.-M., Leung, M.-T., Law, S.-P., & Fung, R. S.-Y. (2010). A database for investigating the logographeme as a basic unit of writing Chinese. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12(1), 8–18. doi:0.3109/17549500903203082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of writing research (pp. 275–290). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 299–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: Guilford.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J., & Chapman, R. (2001). Systematic analysis of language transcripts (Version 7.0) [computer software]. Madison, WI: Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

  • Nelson, N. W., Bahr, C., & Van Meter, A. (2004). The writing lab approach to language instruction and intervention. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, N. W., & Van Meter, A. (2002). Assessing curriculum-based reading and writing samples. Topics in Language Disorders, 22, 35–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, N. W., & Van Meter, A. M. (2007). Measuring written language ability in narrative samples. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23, 287–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olive, T., Alves, R. A., & Castro, S. L. (in press). Cognitive processes in writing during pauses and execution periods. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology.

  • Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2002). Concurrent activation of high- and low-level production processes in written composition. Memory & Cognition, 30, 594–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. A., & Guan, C. Q. (2012, April). Effect of repeated writing practice. In C. Q. Guan (Chair). Written language studies across culture. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Vancouver, Canada.

  • Perfetti, C. A., & Zhang, S. (1995). Very early phonological activation in Chinese reading’. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 21(1), 24–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peverly, S. T. (2006). The importance of handwriting speed in adult writing. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 197–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapp, B., Benzing, L., & Caramazza, A. (1997). The autonomy of lexical orthography. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 71–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satorra, A. (2000). Scaled and adjusted restricted tests in multi-sample analysis of moment structures. In R. D. H. Heijmans, D. S. G. Pollock, & A. Satorra (Eds.), Innovations in multivariate statistical analysis. A Festschrift for Heinz Neudecker (pp. 233–247). London: Kluwer.

  • Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1988). A scaled differences Chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507–514. doi:10.1007/BF02296192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, C., & Windsor, J. (2000). General language performance measures in spoken and written discourse produced by school-age children with and without language learning disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 324–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shu, H., & Anderson, R. C. (1999). Learning to read Chinese: The development of metalinguistic awareness. In J. Wang, A. W. Inhoff, & H.-C. Chen (Eds.), Reading Chinese script: A cognitive analysis (pp. 1–18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venesky, R. (1970). The structure of English orthography. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Venesky, R. (1999). The American way of spelling. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, R. K., Puranik, C. S., Foorman, B., Foster, E., Wilson, L. G., Tschnikel, E., et al. (2011). Modeling the development of written language. Reading and Writing, 24, 203–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weekes, B. S., Chen, M. J., & Lin, Y.-B. (1998). Differential effects of phonological priming on Chinese character recognition. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 10, 201–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weekes, B., Yin, W., Su, I. F., & Chen, M. J. (2006). The cognitive neuropsychology of reading and writing in Chinese. Language and Linguistics, 7, 595–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitaker, D., Berninger, V., Johnston, J., & Swanson, L. (1994). Intraindividual differences in levels of language in intermediate grade writers: Implications for the translating process. Learning and Individual Differences, 6, 107–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan, C. M. W., McBride-Chang, C., Wagner, R. K., Zhang, J., Wong, A. M. Y., & Shu, H. (in press). Writing quality in Chinese children: Speed and fluency matter. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by NICHD Grant P50 HD052120 to Richard K. Wagner.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing, China

    Connie Qun Guan

  2. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Feifei Ye

  3. Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University, West Call Street, Tallahassee, FL, 32306, USA

    Connie Qun Guan

  4. Department of Psychology, Florida State University, 1107 West Call Street, P.O. Box 3064301, Tallahassee, FL, 32306-4301, USA

    Richard K. Wagner

  5. National Institute of Education Sciences, Beijing, China

    Wanjin Meng

Authors
  1. Connie Qun Guan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Feifei Ye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richard K. Wagner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wanjin Meng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Richard K. Wagner or Wanjin Meng.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Guan, C.Q., Ye, F., Wagner, R.K. et al. Developmental and individual differences in Chinese writing. Read Writ 26, 1031–1056 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9405-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9405-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation