Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 26, Issue 6, pp 941–966 | Cite as

A structural equation model of the writing process in typically-developing sixth grade children

  • Anthony D. Koutsoftas
  • Shelley Gray
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Writing Writing process Children Planning Revising Assessment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

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 Education Psychology, 85, 478–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bentler, P. M. (2005). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software. Available at www.mvsoft.com.
  3. Berninger, V. W. (1999). Coordinating transcription and text generation in working memory during composing: Automatic and constructive processes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berninger, V. W., Mizokawa, D. T., Bragg, R., Cartwright, A., & Yates, C. (1994). Intraindividual differences in levels of written language. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 10, 259–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Berninger, V., Whitaker, D., Feng, Y., Swanson, H. L., & Abbott, R. D. (1996). Assessment of planning, translating, and revising in junior high writers. Journal of School Psychology, 54, 23–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Byrne, B. (2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Gilbert, J., & Graham, S. (2010). Teaching writing to elementary students in grades 4 to 6: A national survey. The Elementary School Journal, 4, 494–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  15. Marshall, J. (1989). The three little pigs. New York, NY: Penguin Putnam, Inc.Google Scholar
  16. McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 299–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. National Commission on Writing. (2003, April). The neglected “R”: The need for a writing revolution. Retrieved from www.collegeboard.com.
  20. National Commission on Writing. (2006, May). Writing and school reform. Retrieved from www.collegeboard.com.
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. Puranik, C. S., Lombardino, L. J., & Altmann, L. J. P. (2008). Assessing the microstructure of written language using a retelling paradigm. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 17, 107–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference Chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Wagner, R. K., Puranik, C. S., Foorman, B., Foster, E., Wilson, L. G., Tschinkel, E., et al. (2011). Modeling the development of written language. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24, 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Whitaker, D., Berninger, V. W., Johnston, J., & Swanson, H. L. (1994). Intraindividual differences in levels of language in intermediate grade writers: Implications for the translating process. Learning and Individual Differences, 6, 107–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Williams, K. T. (2001). Technical manual: Group reading assessment and diagnostic evaluation. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Speech and Hearing ScienceArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Speech-Language PathologySeton Hall UniversitySouth OrangeUSA

Personalised recommendations