Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 32, Issue 5, pp 1319–1343 | Cite as

Unpacking pathways using the direct and indirect effects model of writing (DIEW) and the contributions of higher order cognitive skills to writing

  • Young-Suk Grace KimEmail author
  • Seo-Hyun Park
Article
  • 161 Downloads

Abstract

We examined the Direct and Indirect Effects model of Writing (DIEW), using longitudinal data from Korean-speaking beginning writers. DIEW posits hierarchical structural relations among component skills (e.g., transcription skills, higher order cognitive skills, oral language, motivation/affect, background knowledge) where lower level skills are needed for higher order skills and where component skills make direct and indirect contributions to writing (see Fig. 1). A total of 201 Korean-speaking children were assessed on component skills in Grade 1, including transcription (spelling and handwriting fluency), higher order cognitive skills (inference, perspective taking, and monitoring), oral language (vocabulary and grammatical knowledge), and executive function (working memory and attention). Their writing skills were assessed in Grades 1 and 3. DIEW fit the data well. In Grade 1, transcription skills were directly related to writing, whereas vocabulary, grammatical knowledge, working memory, and attention were indirectly related to writing. For Grade 3 writing, inference and spelling were directly related while working memory made both direct and indirect contributions. Attention, vocabulary, and grammatical knowledge made indirect contributions via spelling and inference. These results support DIEW and its associated hypotheses such as the hierarchical nature of structural relations, the roles of higher order cognitive skills, and the changing relations of component skills to writing as a function of development (a developmental hypothesis).
Fig. 1

Direct and indirect effects model of writing (DIEW)

Keywords

Writing DIEW Not-so-simple view of writing Higher order cognitive skills 

Notes

Funding

Funding was provided by Institute of Education Sciences (Grant No. R305A130131) and National Research Foundation of Korea (Grant No. NRF-2013S1A3A2054928).

References

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Alonzo, C. N., Yeomans-Maldonado, C., Murphy, K. A., Bevens, B., & LARRC. (2016). Predicting second grade listening comprehension using prekindergarten measures. Topics in Language Disorders, 36, 3123–3333.Google Scholar
  4. Applebee, A. N. (1984). Writing and reasoning. Review of Educational Research, 54, 577–596.Google Scholar
  5. Arfe, B., Dockrell, J. E., & De Bernardi, B. (2016). The effect of language-specific factors on early written composition: The role of spelling, oral language and text generation skills in a shallow orthography. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29, 501–527.Google Scholar
  6. Aro, M., & Wimmer, H. (2003). Learning to read: English in comparison to six more regular orthographies. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 621–635.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716403000316.Google Scholar
  7. Astington, J., & Jenkins, J. (1999). A longitudinal study of the relation between language and theory of mind development. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1311–1320.Google Scholar
  8. Babayiğit, S. (2014). Contributions of word-level and verbal skills to written expression: Comparison of learners who speak English as a first (L1) and second language (L2). Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27, 1207–1229.Google Scholar
  9. Babayiğit, S., & Stainthorp, R. (2010). Component processes of early reading, spelling, and narrative writing skills in Turkish: A longitudinal study. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 539–568.Google Scholar
  10. Baker, L. (1984). Children’s effective use of multiple standards for evaluating their comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 588–597.Google Scholar
  11. Beaufort, A. (2004). Developmental gains of a history major: A case for building a theory of disciplinary writing expertise. Research in the Teaching of English, 39, 136–185.Google Scholar
  12. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. Berninger, V. W., Vaughn, K. B., Graham, S., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., Rogan, L. W., et al. (1997). Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers: Transfer from handwriting to composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 652–666.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Berninger, V. W., Yates, C. W., Cartwright, A., Rutberg, J., Remy, E., & Abbott, R. (1992). Lower-level developmental skills in beginning writing. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 257–280.Google Scholar
  18. Bianco, M., Bressoux, P., Doyen, A. L., Lambert, E., Lima, L., Pellenq, C., et al. (2010). Early training in oral comprehension and phonological skills: Results of a three-year longitudinal Study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 14, 211–246.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430903117518.Google Scholar
  19. Bock, J. K. (1982). Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review, 89, 1–47.Google Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. Caillies, S., & Sourn-Bissaoui, S. (2008). Children’s understanding of idioms and theory of mind development. Developmental Science, 11, 703–711.Google Scholar
  22. Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (1999). Comprehensive assessment of spoken language. Bloomington, MN: Pearson Assessment.Google Scholar
  23. Carvalho, J. B. (2002). Developing audience awareness in writing. Journal of Research in Reading, 25, 271–282.Google Scholar
  24. Cho, J.-R. (2009). Syllable and letter knowledge in earlier Korean Hangul reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 938–947.Google Scholar
  25. Cho, J.-R., McBride-Chang, C., & Park, S.-G. (2008). Phonological awareness and morphological awareness: Differential associations to regular and irregular word recognition in early Korean Hangul readers. Reading and Writing, 21, 255–274.Google Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. Craig, S., & Lewandowsky, S. (2012). Whichever way you choose to categorize, working memory helps you learn. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 439–464.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2011.608854.Google Scholar
  28. Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 422–433.Google Scholar
  29. De Temple, J. M., Wu, S.-F., & Snow, C. E. (1991). Papa pig just left for pigtown: Children’s oral and written picture descriptions under varying instructions. Discourse Processes, 14, 469–495.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539109544797.Google Scholar
  30. Dromi, E., & Berman, R. A. (1986). Language-specific and language-general in developing syntax. Journal of Child Language, 13, 371–387.Google Scholar
  31. Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105–121). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  32. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153.Google Scholar
  33. Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Florit, E., Roch, M., Altoè, G., & Levorato, M. C. (2009). Listening comprehension in preschoolers: The role of memory. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27, 935–951.Google Scholar
  35. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9464-1.Google Scholar
  36. 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.Google Scholar
  37. Gathercole, S. E., Service, E., Hitch, G. J., Adams, A., & Martin, A. J. (1999). Phonological short-term memory and vocabulary development: Further evidence on the nature of the relationship. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 65–77.Google Scholar
  38. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.170.Google Scholar
  39. Graham, S., Berninger, V., & Fan, W. (2007). The structural relationship between writing attitude and writing achievement in first and third grade students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 516–536.Google Scholar
  40. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2017). Reading and writing connections: How writing can build better readers (and vice versa). In Improving reading and reading engagement in the 21st century (pp. 333–350). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Chorzempa, B. F. (2002). Contribution of spelling instruction to the spelling, writing, and reading of poor spellers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 669–686.Google Scholar
  42. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & McKeown, D. (2013). The writing of students with LD and a meta-analysis of SRSD writing intervention studies: Redux. In L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (2nd ed.). MY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  43. Gwon, E.-Y., & Lee, H.-J. (2012). Children’s development of lying, false belief and executive function. Korean Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25, 165–184.Google Scholar
  44. Hayes, J. R. (2006). New directions in writing theory. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 28–40). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  45. Hayes, J. R., & Chenoweth, N. A. (2007). Working memory in an editing task. Written Communication, 24, 283–294.Google Scholar
  46. Hooper, S. R., Costa, L.-J., McBee, M., Anderson, K. L., Yerby, D. C., Knuth, S. B., et al. (2011). Concurrent and longitudinal neuropsychological contributors to written language expression in first and second grade students. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24, 221–252.Google Scholar
  47. Howlin, P., Baron-Cohen, S., & Hadwin, J. (1999). Teaching children with autism to mind read. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  48. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.Google Scholar
  49. 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.Google Scholar
  50. Kent, S., Wanzek, J., Petscher, Y., Al Otaiba, S., & Kim, Y.-S. (2014). Writing fluency and quality in kindergarten and first grade: The role of attention, reading, transcription, and oral language. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27, 1163–1188.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9480-1.Google Scholar
  51. 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.Google Scholar
  52. Kim, Y.-S. (2015a). Language and cognitive predictors of text comprehension: Evidence from multivariate analysis. Child Development, 86, 128–144.Google Scholar
  53. Kim, Y.-S., Al Otaiba, S., Folsom, J. S., Greulich, L., & Puranik, C. (2014a). 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).Google Scholar
  54. 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.Google Scholar
  55. 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.Google Scholar
  56. Kim, Y.-S., Apel, K., & Al Otaiba, S. (2013a). 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).Google Scholar
  57. Kim, Y.-S., Park, C., & Park, Y. (2013b). Is academic language use a separate dimension in begining writing? Evidence from Korean children. Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 8–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.06.002.Google Scholar
  58. Kim, Y.-S., Park, C., & Wagner, R. K. (2014b). Is oral/text reading fluency a “bridge” to reading comprehension? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27, 79–99.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9434-7.Google Scholar
  59. Kim, Y.-S., & Petscher, Y. (2013). Considering word characteristics for spelling accuracy: Evidence from Korean-speaking children. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 80–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.08.002.Google Scholar
  60. Kim, Y.-S., & Phillips, B. (2014). Cognitive correlates of listening comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 49, 269–281.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.74.Google Scholar
  61. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.107.Google Scholar
  62. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.08.003.Google Scholar
  63. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1291643.Google Scholar
  64. Kim, Y.-S. G. (2017b). Multicomponent view of vocabulary acquisition: An investigation with primary grade children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 162, 120–133.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.05.004.Google Scholar
  65. Kim, Y.-S. G. (in press). Interactive dynamic literacy model: An integrative theoretical framework for reading and writing relations. In R. Alves, T. Limpo, & M. Joshi (Eds.), Reading-writing connections: Towards integrative literacy science. Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  66. Kim, Y.–S. G., Cho, J.-R., & Park, S.-G. (in press). The Korean Test of Language and Literacy Diagnosis (K-TOLLD). Korea Guidance. [in Korean]Google Scholar
  67. Kim, Y.-S. G., Park, C., & Park, Y. (2015b). Dimensions of discourse-level oral language skills and their relations to reading comprehension and written composition: An exploratory study. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 28, 633–654.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9542-7.Google Scholar
  68. 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.Google Scholar
  69. 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.Google Scholar
  70. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  71. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.Google Scholar
  72. 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.Google Scholar
  73. 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.Google Scholar
  74. McBride-Chang, C., Cho, J.-R., Liu, H., Wagner, R. K., Shu, H., Zhou, A., et al. (2010). Changing models across cultures: Associations of phonological awareness and morphological structure awareness with vocabulary and word recognition in second graders from Beijing, Hong Kong, Korea, and the United States. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92, 140–160.Google Scholar
  75. McCutchen, D. (1986). Domain knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development of writing ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 431–444.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596x(86)90036-7.Google Scholar
  76. McCutchen, D. (2000). Knowledge, processing, and working memory: Implications for a theory of writing. Educational Psychologist, 35, 13–23.Google Scholar
  77. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2013). Mplus 7.1. Los Angeles: Muthén and Muthén.Google Scholar
  78. Nagy, W., Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. D. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle-school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 134–147.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.134.Google Scholar
  79. Naigles, L. R., & Leher, N. (2002). Language-general and language-specific influences on children’s acquisition of argument structure: A comparison of French and English. Journal of Child Language, 29, 545–566.Google Scholar
  80. National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The nation’s report card: Writing 2011(NCES 2012–470). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.Google Scholar
  81. 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.Google Scholar
  82. Norbury, C. F. (2005). The relationship between theory of mind and metaphor: Evidence from children with language impairment and autistic spectrum disorder. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23, 383–399.Google Scholar
  83. 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.Google Scholar
  84. Olinghouse, N. G., & Graham, S. (2009). The relationship between discourse knowledge and the writing performance of elementary-grade students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 37–50.Google Scholar
  85. Olinghouse, N. G., Graham, S., & Gillespie, A. (2015). The relationship of discourse and topic knowledge to fifth graders’ writing performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 391–406.Google Scholar
  86. Olive, T. (2004). Working memory in writing: Empirical evidence from the dual-task technique. European Psychologist, 9, 32–42.Google Scholar
  87. Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 139–158.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560308222.Google Scholar
  88. Perin, D., Keselman, A., & Monopoli, M. (2003). The academic writing of community college remedial students: Text and learner variables. Higher Education, 45, 19–42.Google Scholar
  89. Radach, R., Kennedy, A., & Rayner, K. (2004). Eye movements and information processing during reading. New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  90. Ryder, P. M., Vander Lei, E. U., & Roen, D. H. (1999). Audience considerations for evaluating writing. In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing (pp. 93–113). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
  91. Sáez, L., Folsom, J. S., Al Otaiba, S., & Schatschneider, C. (2012). Relations among student attention behaviors, teacher practices, and beginning word reading skill. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 418–432.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411431243.Google Scholar
  92. Scadamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1985). Development of dialectical processes in composition. In D. R. Olson, N. Torrance, & A. Hildyard (Eds.), Literacy, language and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  93. Singer, H., & Ruddell, R. (Eds.). (1985). Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  94. Swanson, J. M., Schuck, S., Mann, M., Carlson, C., Hartman, K., Sergeant, J. A., et al. (2006). Categorical and dimensional definitions and evaluations of symptoms of ADHD: The SNAP and SWAN rating scales. Retrieved from http://www.adhd.net/SNAP_SWAN.pdf.
  95. 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.Google Scholar
  96. Treiman, R. (1993). Beginning to spell: A study of first grade children. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Valle, A., Massaro, D., Castelli, I., & Marchetti, A. (2015). Theory of mind development in adolescence and early adulthood: The growing complexity of recursive thinking ability. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 11, 112–124.Google Scholar
  98. Verhagen, J., & Leseman, P. (2016). How do verbal short-term memory and working memory relate to the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar? A comparison between first and second language learners. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 141, 65–82.Google Scholar
  99. 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.Google Scholar
  100. Wollman-Bonilla, J. E. (2001). Can first-grade writers demonstrate audience awareness? Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 184–201.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA
  2. 2.Dong-A UniversityBusanSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations