A structural equation model of the writing process in typically-developing sixth grade children
- 739 Downloads
The purpose of this study was to evaluate how sixth grade children planned, translated, and revised written narrative stories using a task reflecting current instructional and assessment practices. A modified version of the Hayes and Flower (1980) writing process model was used as the theoretical framework for the study. Two hundred one sixth-grade students participated in a three-day writing task. On the first day they generated ideas for their story, on the second day they produced a first draft, and on the third day they revised their draft to produce a final copy. Scores from each day’s writing were used as measured variables representing the latent variables of planning, translating, and revising. Confirmatory structural equation modeling results suggested that the latent variable of planning had a moderate relationship to translating and that translating had a stronger than expected relationship with revising. Significant paths between measured and latent variables demonstrated the relative contribution of skills towards the writing process. The approach used in this study highlighted the linear manner in which intermediate grade children write. Findings suggest that planning had a direct effect on translating, but no direct effect on revising. There was a strong relationship between translating and revising, suggesting few differences between students’ first and final drafts.
KeywordsWriting Writing process Children Planning Revising Assessment
This work was funded, in part, by a Graduate Professional Student Association Research Support Award at Arizona State University. Many thanks to the students, families, and teachers who participated in this study. Thanks to the Gilbert and Scottsdale school districts for granting research approval. Special thanks to all the research assistants who analyzed the written samples collected for this study. Many thanks to Roy Levy, Heather Harris Wright, and M. Jeanne Wilcox for their feedback on this manuscript. These data were collected as part of Anthony D. Koutsoftas’ doctoral dissertation project.
- Bentler, P. M. (2005). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software. Available at www.mvsoft.com.
- Berninger, V. W., & Swanson, H. L. (1994). Modifying Hayes and Flower’s model of skilled writing to explain beginning and developing writing. In J. S. Carlson (Series Ed.) & E. C. Butterfield (Vol. Ed.), Advances in cognition and education practice, vol. 2: Children’s writing: Toward a process theory of the development of skilled writing (pp. 57–81). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
- Byrne, B. (2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
- Dockrell, J. E., Lindsay, G., Connelly, V., & Mackie, C. (2007). Constraints in the production of written text in children with specific language impairments. Exceptional Children, 73, 147–164.Google Scholar
- Goertz, M. E., Duffy, M. C., & Le Floch, K. C. (2001). Assessment and accountability systems in the 50 states, 1999–2000. CPRE research report series RR-046. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.Google Scholar
- Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Hunt, K. (1970). Syntactic maturity in school children and adults. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 35(Serial No. 134), 1–67.Google Scholar
- Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Marshall, J. (1989). The three little pigs. New York, NY: Penguin Putnam, Inc.Google Scholar
- McFadden, T. U., & Gillam, R. B. (1996). An examination of the quality of narratives produced by children with language disorders. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 27, 48–56.Google Scholar
- Miller, J., & Iglesias, A. (2004). Systematic analysis of language transcripts (SALT). English & Spanish (Version 8) [Computer Software], Language Analysis Lab, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
- National Commission on Writing. (2003, April). The neglected “R”: The need for a writing revolution. Retrieved from www.collegeboard.com.
- National Commission on Writing. (2006, May). Writing and school reform. Retrieved from www.collegeboard.com.
- Nelson, N. W., Bahr, C. M., & Van Meter, A. M. (2004). The writing lab approach to language instruction and intervention. Baltimore, MD: Brooks Publishing Co.Google Scholar
- Persky, H. R., Daane, M. C., & Jin, Y. (2003). The nation’s report card: Writing 2002. (NCES 2003–529). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
- Salahu-Din, D., Persky, H., & Miller, J. (2008). The nation’s report card: Writing 2007 (NCES 2008–468). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
- Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2003). Effect size substantive interpretation guidelines: Issues in the interpretation of effect sizes. Washington, DC: What Works Clearinghouse.Google Scholar
- Williams, K. T. (2001). Technical manual: Group reading assessment and diagnostic evaluation. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar