Twenty-four children with writing problems were given instruction in handwriting automaticity, spelling strategies, and the composing process (plan, write, review, revise) in 14 one-hour individual tutorials during the summer between third and fourth grade. Half the children (8 boys, 4 girls) received extra practice in composing, while half the children (8 boys, 4 girls) received special training in orthographic and phonological coding. Hierarchical linear modeling of growth curves was used to compare the treatment groups to a non-contact control group (10 boys, 5 girls) on a standard battery at pretest, midtest, posttest, and the two treatment groups with each other on probe measures of handwriting, spelling, and composition in each tutorial session. The treatment groups improved at a faster rate than the control group on some measures of handwriting, spelling, and composition (fluency and quality) in the standard battery, but Verbal IQ did not predict rate of improvement. Differences were found between the two treatment groups in some probe measures of writing and a motivation variable (work avoidance). Repeated-measures ANOVA was used to compare treatment groups to a non-contact control group at pretest, midtest, posttest, and follow-up. Differences between the treatment and control groups favoring the treatment groups were maintained at 6-month follow-up on some handwriting, spelling, and composition (quality) measures. Individual differences were found in learner characteristics prior to treatment and in response to the same treatment. The importance of affect and motivation as well as cognitive variables is emphasized.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbbottR.BerningerV. (1993). Structural equation modeling of relationships among developmental skills and writing skills in primary and intermediate grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 (3), 478–508.
2.
BerningerV. (1994). Reading and writing acquisition. A developmental neuropsychological perspective. Madison, WI: WCB Brown & Benchmark.
3.
BerningerV.AbbottR. (1992). The unit of analysis and constructive processes of the learner: Key concepts for educational neuropsychology. Educational Psychologist, 27, 223–242.
4.
BerningerV.AbbottR. (1994a). Redefining learning disabilities: Moving beyond aptitude-achievement discrepancies to failure to respond to validated treatment protocols. In Reid-LyonG. (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities. New views on measurement issues (pp. 163–183). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
5.
BerningerV.AbbottR. (1994b). Multiple orthographic and phonological codes in reading and writing: An evolving research program. In BerningerV.W. (Ed.), The varieties of orthographic knowledge I: Theoretical and developmental issues (pp. 277–317). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
6.
BerningerV.HartT. (1993). From research to clinical assessment of reading and writing disorders: The unit of analysis problem. In JoshiR.M.LeongC.K. (Eds.), Reading disabilities: Diagnosis and component processes (pp. 33–61). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
7.
BerningerV.MizokawaD.BraggR.CartwrightA.YatesC. (1994). Intraindividual differences in levels of written language. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 10, 259–275.
8.
BerningerV.RutbergJ. (1992). Relationship of finger function to beginning writing: Application to diagnosis of writing disabilities. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 34, 155–172.
9.
BerningerV.SwansonH.L. (1994). Modifying Flower and Hayes' model of skilled writing to explain beginning and developing writing. In ButterfieldE. (Ed.), Children's writing: Toward a process theory of development of skilled writing (pp. 57–81). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
10.
BerningerV.TraweekD. (1991). Effects of two-phase intervention on three orthographic-phonological code connections. Learning and Individual Differences, 3, 323–338.
11.
BerningerV.WhitakerD. (1993). Theory-based branching diagnosis of writing disabilities. School Psychology Review, 22, 623–642.
12.
BerningerV.WhitakerD.FengY.SwansonH.L.AbbottR.D.(in press). Assessment of planning, translating, and revising in junior high writers. Journal of School Psychology
13.
BerningerV.YatesC.CartwrightA.RutbergJ.RemyE.AbbottR. (1992). Lower-level developmental skills in beginning writing. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 257–280.
14.
BorkowskiJ. (1992). Metacognitive theory: A framework for teaching literacy, writing, and math skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25 (4), 253–257.
15.
BurchinalM.ApplebaumM. (1991). Estimating individual developmental functions: Methods and their assumptions. Child Development, 62, 23–43.
16.
BrykA.RaudenbushS. (1987). Application of hierarchical linear models to assessing change. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 147–158.
17.
BrykA.RaudenbushS. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
18.
CollinsL.HornJ. (1991). Best methods for the analysis of change. Recent advances, unanswered questions, future directions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
19.
CronbachL.FurbyL. (1970). How should we measure change or should we?Psychological Bulletin, 47, 68–80.
20.
EnglertC.RaphaelT.AndersonL.AnthonyH.StevensD. (1991). Making strategies and self-talk visible: Writing instruction in regular and special education classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 337–372.
21.
ForteI. (1983). Write about it. Activities for teaching basic writing skills. Primary and middle grades. Nashville, TN: Incentive Publications.
22.
FrancisP.J.FletcherJ.M.StuebingK.DavidsonK.ThompsonN. (1991). Analysis of change: Modeling individual growth. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 27–37.
23.
GreenblattE.MattisS.TradP. (1990). Nature and prevalence of learning disabilities in a child psychiatric population. Developmental Neuropsychology, 71–83.
24.
HayesJ.FlowerL. (1980). Identifying the organization of the writing process. In GreggL.W.SteinbergE.R. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25.
HooperS.SwartzC.MontgomeryJ.ReedM.BrownT.WasileskiT.LevineM. (1993). Prevalence of writing problems across three middle school samples. School Psychology Review, 22, 610–622.
26.
JastakS.WilkinsonG. (1984). Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised. Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates.
27.
LordF.M. (1956). The measurement of growth. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 16, 421–437.
28.
McCutchenD. (1988). “Functional automaticity” in children's writing: A problem of metacognitive control. Written Communication, 5, 306–324.
29.
NichollsJ.G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
NichollsJ.G.PatashnickM.NolenS. (1985). Adolescents' theories of education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 683–692.
31.
RogosaD.BrandtD.ZimowskiM. (1992). A growth curve approach to the measurement of change. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 726–748.
32.
RudginskyL.HaskellE. (1984, 1985). How to teach spelling. How to spell. Workbooks 1, 2, 3, and 4. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.
33.
ScardamaliaM.BereiterC. (1986). Research on written composition. In WittrockM.C. (Ed.), Handbook on research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 778–803). New York: MacMillan.
34.
SiegelL. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 469–486.
35.
SwansonH.L.BerningerV.W. (1994). Working memory as a source of individual differences in children's writing. In ButterfieldE. (Ed.), Children's writing: Toward a process theory of the development of skilled writing (pp. 31–56). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
36.
ThorndikeR.HagenE.SattlerJ. (1986). Guide for administering and scoring the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth edition. Chicago: Riverside Publishing.
37.
TiedtI.HoN. (1987). Learning to use written language. Lessons from The South Bay Writing Project Grades 1–3. Belmont, CA: David S. Lake Publishers.
38.
TiedtI.JohnsonL. (1987). Catching the writing express. Lessons from the South Bay Writing Project Grades 2–4. Belmont, CA: David S. Lake Publishers.
39.
WechslerD. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-III. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
40.
WhitakerD.BerningerV.JohnstonJ.SwansonH.L. (1994). Intraindividual differences in levels of written language in intermediate grade writers: Implications for the translation process. Learning and Individual Differences, 6, 107–130.
41.
WillettJ. (1988). Questions and answers in the measurement of change. In RothkopfE.Z. (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 345–422). Washington, DC: AERA
42.
WoodcockR. (1987). Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
43.
YatesC.BerningerV.AbbottR.(in press). Specific writing disabilities in intellectually gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted.
