No AccessLanguage, Speech, and Hearing Services in SchoolsResearch Article1 Oct 2012

Comparison of Narrative and Expository Writing in Students With and Without Language-Learning Disabilities

Anthony D. Koutsoftas
Shelley Gray

Anthony D. Koutsoftas

Correspondence to Anthony D. Koutsoftas, who is now at Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ:

E-mail Address: [email protected]

Arizona State University, Tempe

Google Scholar

Abstract

Purpose

Students with language-learning disabilities (LLD) demonstrate difficulties with written language, especially in the areas of productivity, complexity, and grammar. It is not clear how these deficits affect their performance on high-stakes tests, such as those required by the No Child Left Behind Act (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). This study used writing samples to compare how students with and without LLD scored on analytic writing measures that are typically used in writing research and on a more holistic measure of writing, the six-traits writing rubric (STWR; Education Northwest, 2006), which is used in high-stakes writing assessments.

Method

Fifty-six 4th and 5th graders with typical development (TD) or LLD produced 1 narrative and 1 expository writing sample. Measures of oral language ability and handwriting accuracy–speed were also obtained. The narrative and expository samples were scored using 5–6 separate analytic measures and 6 separate traits on the STWR.

Results

On narratives, the TD group scored significantly higher than the LLD group on 5 analytic measures and all 6 traits. Similarly, for expository, the TD group outscored the LLD group on 3 analytic measures and all 6 traits. Results demonstrate that the analytic scores of productivity, sentence complexity, and lexical diversity were correlated significantly with a higher overall score on the STWR for narrative writing samples only.

Discussion

Results of this study suggest that exclusive use of analytic scores to select treatment goals and document writing progress may not translate into increased scores on writing rubrics, particularly for expository writing samples.

REFERENCES

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2001). Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists with respect to reading and writing in children and adolescents [Guidelines]. Available from www.asha.org/policy
Google Scholar
Anderson, S. A. (2002). Is the MEAP writing test reliable? A case study.Michigan Reading Journal, 34(4)23–25.
Google Scholar
Apel, K., & Masterson, J. J. (2001). Theory-guided spelling assessment and intervention: A case study.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 182–195.
ASHAWire Google Scholar
Apel, K., Masterson, J. J., & Hart, P. (2004). Integration of language components in spelling: Instruction that maximizes student’s learning.In E. R. Silliman, & L. C. Wilkinson (Eds.), Language and literacy learning in schools (pp. 292–316). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Google Scholar
Arizona Department of Education. (2006a). AIMS report wizard. Retrieved from http://www.ade.state.az.us/profile/publicview/
Google Scholar
Arizona Department of Education. (2006b). AIMS six trait analytic writing rubric official scoring guide. Retrieved from http://www.ade.state.az.us/SBTL/6traits/Default.asp
Google Scholar
Crawford, L., Tindal, G., & Carpenter, D. M. I. (2006). Exploring the validity of the Oregon Extended Writing Assessment.Journal of Special Education, 40(1)16–27.
Google Scholar
Davidson, M., Howell, K. W., & Hoekema, P. (2000). Effects of ethnicity and violent content on rubric scores in writing samples.Journal of Educational Research, 93(6)367–372.
Google Scholar
Diener, M. J. (2010). Cohen’s d.Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology. doi: 10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0200
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(2)147–164.
Crossref Google Scholar
Education Northwest. (2006). 6 + 1 trait writing. Retrieved from http://www.educationnorthwest.org
Google Scholar
V. B. Edwards (Ed.), 2002). Quality counts 2002: Building blocks for success. State efforts in early childhood education.Education Week, 21(17)
Google Scholar
Fey, M. E., Catts, H. W., Proctor-Williams, K., Tomblin, J. B., & Zhang, X. (2004). Oral and written story composition skills of children with language impairment.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(6)1301–1318.
ASHAWire Google Scholar
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS: Third edition. London, England: Sage.
Google Scholar
Gamaroff, R. (2000). Rater reliability in language assessment: The bug of all bears.System, 28(1)31–53.
Google Scholar
Gillam, R. B., & Johnston, J. R. (1992). Spoken and written language relationships in language/learning-impaired and normally achieving school-age children.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35(6)1303–1315.
ASHAWire 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 No. RR-046). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Google Scholar
Graham, S. (1990). The role of production factors in learning disabled students' compositions.Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4)781–791.
Crossref Google Scholar
Graham, S. (1999). Handwriting and spelling instruction for students with learning disabilities: A review.Learning Disability Quarterly, 22(2)78–98.
Crossref Google Scholar
Graham, S., Berninger, V., Weintraub, N., & Schafer, W. (1998). Development of handwriting speed and legibility in grades 1–9.Journal of Educational Research, 92(1)42–52.
Google Scholar
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Larsen, L. (2001). Prevention and intervention of writing difficulties for students with learning disabilities.Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 16(2)74–84.
Google Scholar
Heefner, D. L., & Shaw, P. C. (1996). Assessing the written narratives of deaf students using the six-trait analytical scale.Volta Review, 98(1)147–168.
Google Scholar
Hughes, D., McGillivray, L., & Schmidek, M. (1997). Guide to narrative language: Procedures for assessment. Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications.
Google Scholar
Hunt, K. W. (1970). Syntactic maturity in schoolchildren and adults.Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 35(1)1–67.
Crossref Medline Google Scholar
Johnson, D. J., & Carlisle, J. F. (1996). A study of handwriting in written stories of normal and learning disabled children.Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8(1)45–59.
Google Scholar
Leonard, L. (1998). Children with specific language impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Google Scholar
Mabry, L. (1999). Writing to the rubric: Lingering effects of traditional standardized testing on direct writing assessment.Phi Delta Kappan, 80(9)673–679.
Google Scholar
Mackie, C., & Dockrell, J. E. (2004). The nature of written language deficits in children with SLI.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(6)1469–1482.
ASHAWire Google Scholar
Masterson, J. J., & Crede, L. A. (1999). Learning to spell: Implications for assessment and intervention.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 30, 243–254.
ASHAWire 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(1)48–56.
ASHAWire Google Scholar
Merritt, D. D., & Liles, B. Z. (1987). Story grammar ability in children with and without language disorder: Story generation, story retelling, and story comprehension.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30(4)539–552.
ASHAWire Google Scholar
Miller, J., & Iglesias, A. (2004). Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts, English & Spanish (Version 8) [Computer software].Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin–Madison, Waisman Center, Language Analysis Laboratory.
Google Scholar
Myers, M. (1981). A procedure for writing assessment and holistic scoring. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Google Scholar
Myklebust, H. R. (1965). Picture Story Language Test. New York, NY: Grune & Stratton.
Google Scholar
Nelson, N. W., & Van Meter, A. M. (2007). Measuring written language ability in narrative samples.Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23, 287–309.
Crossref Google Scholar
Osborn-Popp, S. E. (2001). Comparability and linking in direct writing assessment: Benchmarks, discourse mode, and grade level. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses at Arizona State University. (No. AAT 3031474).
Google Scholar
Popp, S. E. O., Ryan, J. M., Thompson, M. S., & Behrens, J. T. (2003, April). Operationalizing the rubric: The effect of benchmark selection on the assessed quality of writing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Google Scholar
Reilly, J., Losh, M., Bellugi, U., & Wulfeck, B. (2004). “Frog, where are you?” Narratives in children with specific language impairment, early focal brain injury, and Williams syndrome.Brain and Language, 2(88)229–247.
Google Scholar
Schoonen, R., Vergeer, M., & Eiting, M. (1997). The assessment of writing ability: Expert readers versus lay readers.Language Testing, 14(2)157–184.
Google Scholar
Scott, C. M., & Windsor, J. (2000). General language performance measures in spoken and written narrative and expository discourse of school-age children with language learning disabilities.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43(2)324–339.
ASHAWire Google Scholar
Semel, E., Wiig, E., & Secord, W. (2003). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals—Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Google Scholar
Stein, N. L., & Glenn, C. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children: A test of a schema.In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (pp. 53–120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Google Scholar
Stuhlmann, J., Daniel, C., Dellinger, A., Denny, K. R., & Powers, T. (1999). A generalizability study of the effects of training on teachers' ability to rate children’s writing using a rubric.Reading Psychology, 20(2)107–127.
Google Scholar
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No child left behind. Retrieved http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml
Google Scholar
Wiederholt, J. L., & Bryant, B. R. (2001). Gray Oral Reading Tests—Fourth Edition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Google Scholar
Windsor, J., Scott, C. M., & Street, C. K. (2000). Verb and noun morphology in the spoken and written language of children with language learning disabilities.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43(6)1322–1336.
ASHAWire Google Scholar