Learning to use language in order to complete source-based writing tasks is a challenge for middle grade writers worthy of additional study, especially given that these tasks are increasingly common in classrooms. Here, we examined the contribution of receptive and productive cross-disciplinary academic language skills to the writing quality of middle graders’ science summaries, after accounting for students’ sociodemographic characteristics, their comprehension of the science source text, and general summary features (i.e., length and copy ratio). Our results suggest that the ability to produce a high-quality science summary is predominately driven by the writers’ receptive academic language proficiency, comprehension of the source text and productive academic language used when writing, including text length. We contend that these results are illuminating because of the joint examination of students’ productive and receptive academic language skills. In addition, this study attempts to unpack the relation between summary length and quality, identifying levels of receptive academic language skills as an important moderator. These findings have the potential to advance the current understanding of malleable factors associated with science writing proficiency, as well as with those associated with source-based writing more generally.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Whereas the two forms of the GISA reading comprehension test had been equated, the measures used to assess the GISA summary writing task in this study needed to be equated.
Abbott, R., Berninger, V., & Fayol, M. (2010). Longitudinal relationships to levels of language in writing and between writing and reading in grades 1 to 7. Journal of Educational Psychology,102(2), 281–298.
Avalos, M. A., Secada, W. G., Zisselsberger, M. G., & Gort, M. (2017). “Hey! today i will tell you about the water cycle!”: Variations of language and organizational features in third-grade science explanation writing. The Elementary School Journal,118(1), 149–176.
Bazerman, C. (2004). Intertextualities: Volosinov, Bakhtin, literary theory, and literacy studies. In A. F. Ball & S. W. Freedman (Eds.), Bakhtinian perspectives on language, literacy, and learning (pp. 53–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2011). Writing development in four genres from grades three to seven: Syntactic complexity and genre differentiation. Reading and Writing,24(2), 183–202.
Berman, R. A. (2008). The psycholinguistics of developing text construction. Journal of Child Language,35(4), 735–771.
Berman, R. A. (2009). Beyond the sentence: Language development in narrative contexts. In E. Bavin (Ed.), Handbook of child language (pp. 354–375). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Berman, R., & Nir-Sagiv, B. (2009). Cognitive and linguistic factors in evaluating text quality: Global versus local. In V. Evans & V. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 421–440). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Berman, R. A., & Nir-Sagiv, B. (2007). Comparing narrative and expository text construction across adolescence: A developmental paradox. Discourse processes,43(2), 79–120.
Berninger, V. W., Nagy, W., & Beers, S. (2011). Child writers’ construction and reconstruction of single sentences and construction of multi-sentence texts: Contributions of syntax and transcription to translation. Reading and Writing,24(2), 151–182.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics,25(3), 371–405.
Brisk, M. E. (2012). Young bilingual writers’ control of grammatical person in different genres. Elementary Education Journal,112, 445–468.
Brisk, M. E. (2015). Engaging students in academic literacies: Genre-based pedagogy for K-5 classrooms. New York: Routledge.
Chambliss, M. J., Christenson, L. A., & Parker, C. (2003). Fourth graders composing scientific explanations about the effects of pollutants: Writing to understand. Written Communication,20(4), 426–454.
Christie, J. (1989). Nature transfigured: Science and literature, 1700–1900. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Connelly, V., Dockrell, J., Walter, K., & Critten, S. (2012). Predicting the quality of composition and written language bursts from oral language, spelling, and handwriting skills in children with and without specific language impairment. Written Communication,29(3), 278–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312451109.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly,34(2), 213–238.
Cumming, A., Lai, C., & Cho, H. (2016). Students’ writing from sources for academic purposes: A synthesis of recent research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,23, 47–58.
De La Paz, S., Ferretti, R., Wissinger, D., Yee, L., & MacArthur, C. (2012). Adolescents’ disciplinary use of evidence, argumentative strategies, and organizational structure in writing about historical controversies. Written Communication,29(4), 412–454.
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(2), 147–164.
Eggins, S. (1994). Introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London, NY: Pinter.
Fang, Z. (2005). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education,89(2), 335–347.
Fang, Z. (2014). Preparing content area teachers for disciplinary literacy instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,57(6), 444–448.
Fang, Z., & Schleppegrell, M. J. (2008). Technicality and reasoning in science: Beyond vocabulary. In Z. Fang & M. J. Schleppegrell (Eds.), Reading in secondary content areas: A language-based pedagogy (pp. 18–38). Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Gee, J. P. (2014). Decontextualized language: A problem, not a solution. International Multilingual Research Journal,8(1), 9–23.
Glynn, S. M., & Muth, K. D. (1994). Reading and writing to learn science: Achieving scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,31(9), 1057–1073.
Good, J. M., Halpin, G., & Halpin, G. (2000). A promising prospect for minority retention: Students becoming peer mentors. Journal of Negro Education,69, 375–383.
Goodman, E., & Bates, J. (1997). On the inseparability of grammar and the lexicon: Evidence from acquisition, aphasia and real-time processing. Language and Cognitive Processes,12(5–6), 507–584.
Graham, S. (2018). A Revised writer (s)-within-community model of writing. Educational Psychologist,53, 1–22.
Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading: A report from Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Graham, S., Liu, K., Bartlett, B., Ng, C., Harris, K. R., Aitken, A., et al. (2017). Reading for writing: A meta-analysis of the impact of reading and reading instruction on writing. Review of Educational Research,88(2), 243–284.
Guo, L., Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Predicting human judgments of essay quality in both integrated and independent second language writing samples: A comparison study. Assessing Writing,18(3), 218–238.
Halliday, M. A. K. (Ed.). (2004). Lexicology and corpus linguistics. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). General orientation. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 2–24). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Holland, P. W., & Rubin, D. B. (1982). Test equating. New York: Academic.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Ivanič, R. (2004). Discourses of writing and learning to write. Language and Education,18(3), 220–245.
Keck, C. (2014). Copying, paraphrasing, and academic writing development: A re-examination of L1 and L2 summarization practices. Journal of Second Language Writing,25, 4–22.
Keys, C. W. (1999). Language as an indicator of meaning generation: An analysis of middle school students’ written discourse about scientific investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,36(9), 1044–1061.
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(5), 517–525.
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(1), 35.
Kintsch, W. (1994). The psychology of discourse processing. New York: Academic Press.
Kyle, K. (2016). Measuring syntactic development in L2 writing: Fine grained indices of syntactic complexity and usage-based indices of syntactic sophistication (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/alesl_diss/35. Accessed 24 Mar 2017.
Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. A. (2015). Automatically assessing lexical sophistication: Indices, tools, findings, and application. TESOL Quarterly,49(4), 757–786.
Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. (2016). The relationship between lexical sophistication and independent and source-based writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 34, 12–24.
Kyle, K., Crossley, S. A., & Berger, C. (2018). The tool for the analysis of lexical sophistication (TAALES): Version 2.0. Behavior Research Methods,50(3), 1030–1046.
LaRusso, M., Kim, H. Y., Selman, R., Uccelli, P., Dawson, T., Jones, S., et al. (2016). Contributions of academic language, perspective taking, and complex reasoning to deep reading comprehension. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2015.1116035.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Lemke, J. (1998). Multiplying meaning. In J. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science (pp. 87–113). London: Routledge.
Luo, W., & Azen, R. (2013). Determining predictor importance in hierarchical linear models using dominance analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics,38(1), 3–31.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for Analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Miller, D. M., Scott, C. E., & McTigue, E. M. (2018). Writing in the secondary-level disciplines: A systematic review of context, cognition, and content. Educational Psychology Review,30, 1–38.
Museus, S. D., Palmer, R. T., Davis, R. J., & Maramba, D. (Eds.). (2011). Racial and ethnic minority student success in STEM education: ASHE higher education report (Vol. 36, No. 6). New York: Wiley.
NAEP (2011). The Nation's Report Card: Writing 2011. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from: https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012470
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review,66(1), 60–93.
Ninio, A., & Snow, C. (1996). Pragmatic development. New York, NY: Routledge.
Nir-Sagiv, B., & Berman, R. (2010). Complex syntax as a window on contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Pragmatics,42(3), 744–765.
O’Brien, D. G., Stewart, R. A., & Moje, E. B. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to infuse into the secondary school: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and school culture. Reading Research Quarterly,30, 442–463.
Olinghouse, N. G. (2008). Student-and instruction-level predictors of narrative writing in third-grade students. Reading and Writing,21(1–2), 3–26.
Olinghouse, N. G., & Wilson, J. (2013). The relationship between vocabulary and writing quality in three genres. Reading and Writing,26(1), 45–65.
Phillips Galloway, E., & Uccelli, P. (2019). Beyond reading comprehension: Exploring the additional contribution of academic language skills to early adolescents’ source-based writing. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 32(3), 729–759.
Plakans, L. (2008). Comparing composing processes in writing-only and reading-to-write test tasks. Assessing Writing,13(2), 111–129.
Ravid, D. (2005). Emergence of linguistic complexity in later language development: Evidence from expository text construction. In D. D. Ravid & H. B. Z. Shyldkrot (Eds.), Perspectives on language and language development (pp. 337–355). Boston, MA: Springer.
Ray, A. B., Graham, S., Houston, J. D., & Harris, K. (2016). Teachers use of writing to support students’ learning in middle school: A national survey in the United States. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,29, 1039–1068.
Sabatini, J. P., Halderman, L. K., O’reilly, T., & Weeks, J. P. (2016). Assessing comprehension in kindergarten through third grade. Topics in Language Disorders,36(4), 334–355.
Sabatini, J. P., O’Reilly, T., Halderman, L. K., & Bruce, K. (2014). Integrating scenario-based and component reading skill measures to understand the reading behavior of struggling readers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,29(1), 36–43.
Santi, K. L., Barr, C. D., Khalaf, S., & Francis, D. J. (2016). Different approaches to equating oral reading fluency passages. In Y. Petscher & K. D. Cummings (Eds.), The Fluency Construct (pp. 223–265). New York, NY: Springer.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and Education,12, 431–459.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2002). Challenges of the science register for ESL students: Errors and meaning-making. In M. J. Schleppegrell & M. C. Colombi (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power (pp. 119–142). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). Teaching academic writing to English learners. University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute (UCLMRI) Newsletter,13(2), 1–2.
Seah, L. H., Clarke, D. J., & Hart, C. E. (2011). Understanding students’ language use about expansion through analyzing their lexicogrammatical resources. Science Education,95, 852–876.
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review,78(1), 40–59.
Silliman, E. R., Wilkinson, L. C., & Brea-Spahn, M. (2018). Writing the science register and multiple levels of language: Implications for English learners. In A. L. Bailey, C. A. Maher, & L. C. Wilkinson (Eds.), Language, literacy, and learning in the STEM disciplines (pp. 133–158). New York: Routledge.
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.
Solé, I., Miras, M., Castells, N., Espino, S., & Minguela, M. (2013). Integrating information: An analysis of the processes involved and the products generated in a written synthesis task. Written Communication,30(1), 63–90.
Stadler, M., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., & Greiff, S. (2017). A primer on relative importance analysis: Illustrations of its utility for psychological research. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling,59(4), 381–403.
Uccelli, P., Barr, C. D., Dobbs, C. L., Phillips Galloway, E., Meneses, A., & Sanchez, E. (2015). Core academic language skills: An expanded operational construct and a novel instrument to chart school-relevant language proficiency in preadolescent and adolescent learners. Applied Psycholinguistics,36(5), 1077–1109.
Uccelli, P., Dobbs, C. L., & Scott, J. (2013). Mastering academic language: Organization and stance in the persuasive writing of high school students. Written Communication,30(1), 36–62.
Uccelli, P., & Phillips Galloway, E. (2017). Academic language across content areas: Lessons from an innovative assessment and from students’ reflections about language. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,60(4), 395–404.
Uccelli, P., Phillips Galloway, E., Barr, C. D., Meneses, A., & Dobbs, C. L. (2015). Beyond vocabulary: Exploring cross-disciplinary academic-language proficiency and its association with reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly,50(3), 337–356.
van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. F., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition,29(8), 1081–1087.
van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension (pp. 11–12). New York: Academic Press.
Wang, E., Matsumura, L. C., & Correnti, R. (2018). Student writing accepted as high-quality responses to analytic text-based writing tasks. The Elementary School Journal,118(3), 357–383.
Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.
Wijekumar, K., Graham, S., Harris, K. R., Lei, P. W., Barkel, A., Aitken, A., Ray, A., & Houston, J. (2018). The roles of writing knowledge, motivation, strategic behaviors, and skills in predicting elementary students’ persuasive writing from source material. Reading and Writing, 1–27.
Wilkinson, L., Silliman, E. R., Morrow, L. M., & Chou, V. (2008). Academic language proficiency and literacy instruction in urban settings. In L. C. Wilkinson, L. M. Morrow, & V. Chou (Eds.), Improving literacy achievement in urban schools: Critical elements in teacher preparation (pp. 121–142). Newark: International Reading Association.
Wilkinson, L. C., & Silliman, E. R. (2000). Classroom language and literacy learning. Handbook of Reading Research,3, 337–360.
Wollman-Bonilla, J. E. (2000). Teaching science writing to first graders: “Genre learning and recontextualization”. Research in the Teaching of English,35, 35–65.
Yore, L., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education,25(6), 689–725.
The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences (Grant No. R305A170185), US Department of Education, which was awarded to Paola Uccelli (Principal Investigator, Harvard University), Christopher D. Barr (Co-Principal Investigator, Rice University), and Emily Phillips Galloway (Co-Principal Investigator, Vanderbilt University). The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the Institute or the US Department of Education. We express our gratitude to the students and teachers who shared their valuable time and insights with us and to our numerous colleagues for their helpful comments as we conducted this work. In addition, we thank the editors of this special issue and the reviewers whose feedback improved this manuscript.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Phillips Galloway, E., Qin, W., Uccelli, P. et al. The role of cross-disciplinary academic language skills in disciplinary, source-based writing: investigating the role of core academic language skills in science summarization for middle grade writers. Read Writ 33, 13–44 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09942-x
- Academic language
- Source-based writing