The Not-So-Simple View of Writing in Struggling Readers/Writers

Figures & data

Figure 1. Schematic of the Not-so-Simple View of Writing as a theoretical model. From Berninger and Winn (2006, p. 97). Copyright © 2006 The Guilford Press. Reprinted by permission. ^aActivates long-term memory during planning, composing, reviewing, revising, and short-term memory during reviewing and revising output. ^bComponents include (1) orthographic, phonological, and morphological storage units for verbal information, (2) a phonological loop for learning words and maintaining verbal information actively in working memory, and (3) executive supports that link verbal working memory with the general executive system (a distributed network of many executive functions) and with nonverbal working memory (which stores information in a visual-spatial sketchpad). ^cA complex system that regulates focused attention – selecting what is relevant and inhibiting what is not relevant, switching attention between mental sets, attention maintenance (staying on task), conscious attention, (metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness), cognitive presence, and cognitive engagement.

Figure 2. Schematic of the Not-so-Simple View of Writing (NSVW) as an empirical model. Note. %WSC: % words spelled correctly; CC: cognitive control; FL: fluency; Strat: learning strategies; TOWL: Test of Written Language; WJ-III: Woodcock Johnson-III; WM: working memory.

Figure 3. Standardized results for the full model. Note. %WSC: words spelled correctly; CC: cognitive control; FL: fluency; Strat: learning strategies; TOWL: Test of Written Language; WJ-III: Woodcock Johnson-III; WM: working memory. ^aHandwriting to planning; ^bhandwriting to editing; ^cplanning to editing; ^dspelling to planning; ^eplanning to revision; ^fspelling to revision. Solid lines represent significant direct effects or correlations; dashed lines represent non-significant direct effects or correlations. Parameter estimates are shown for direct effects only.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics by grade and for the overall sample.

				G3 (n = 113)		G4 (n = 152)		G5 (n = 137)		Total (n = 402)
Measure	Narrow construct	Reliability		M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Domain-general resources
Executive function
NIH – Working memory^c	Dot-counting		0.69^a	−0.28	0.52	−0.10	0.57	−0.03	0.53	−0.13	0.55
NIH – Fluency^c	Phonemic/category		0.78–0.88^a	−1.14	0.48	−0.99	0.48	−0.84	0.46	−0.98	0.48
NIH – Cognitive control^c	Shifting/anti-saccade		0.86–0.97^a	−0.30	0.51	−0.06	0.50	0.10	0.48	−0.07	0.52
Motivation/Self-efficacy
SCLS – Self-efficacy^d	Confidence in ability		0.84^a	15.35	4.31	16.62	3.48	16.23	4.20	16.12	4.00
SCLS – Strategies^d	Learning strategies		0.84^a	17.28	5.26	17.64	5.07	17.19	4.97	17.39	5.08
SCLS – Effort^d	Motivation to work		0.84^a	12.39	3.74	12.84	3.31	12.44	3.73	12.58	3.58
Transcription
TOWL handwriting^e	Handwriting accuracy		0.91^b	2.28	0.97	3.04	1.13	3.13	1.10	2.85	1.13
TOWL %WSC	Spelling (essay)		0.98^a	77.55	12.50	85.75	10.60	87.76	7.44	84.12	11.06
WJ III spelling^f	Spelling (dictation)		0.93^b	85.86	14.75	95.49	12.41	91.69	11.46	91.48	13.36
Composition processes
TOWL planning^g	5 Min. pre-planning		0.75^b	1.29	0.53	1.65	0.86	1.70	0.85	1.57	0.79
TOWL editing^h	Mechanics		0.62^a	3.64	2.06	6.26	2.92	6.36	2.78	5.56	2.91
TOWL revision^h	Content/organization		0.72^a	2.05	1.53	3.99	2.77	4.15	2.84	3.50	2.66
Writing outcomes
TOWL #words written	Writing fluency		1.00^a	71.27	35.11	103.38	40.38	110.37	44.09	96.75	43.35
TOWL 6-traits total^i	Writing quality		0.80–0.91^b	11.40	3.85	16.17	5.39	17.80	4.67	15.37	5.40

Note. Standard scores were available only for WJ Spelling. %WSC: percent of words spelled correctly; NIH: NIH Examiner; SCLS: Student Contextual Learning Scale. ^cFactor scores; ^dSub-scale scores (max = 21 for Self-Efficacy, max = 27 for Strategies, max = 28 for Effort); ^e1–6 point rubric; ^fGrade-based standard scores; ^g1-5 point rubric; ^hSub-scale scores (max = 13 for Editing, max = 14 for Revising); ⁱmaximum possible score = 36. ^aCronbach’s alpha; ^bCohen’s kappa.

Table 2. Standardized solution for total, total indirect and specific indirect effects from the full model.

	Total			Total indirect			Statistically significant specific indirect effects
Path	Estimate	S.E.	95% CI	Estimate	S.E.	95% CI	Paths	Estimate	S.E.	95% CI
Editing
βEF→EDIT	0.42**	0.08	[0.18, 0.59]	0.39**	0.10	[0.20, 0.75]	βEF→SPELL→EDIT	0.32**	0.09	[0.13, 0.63]
βMO→EDIT	0.19*	0.06	[0.01, 0.34]	0.14*	0.05	[0.02, 0.30]	βMO→SPELL→EDIT	0.11*	0.05	[0.01, 0.27]
βSPELL→EDIT	0.63**	0.09	[0.43, 0.94]	0.06*	0.03	[−0.02, 0.13]	βSPELL→HW→EDIT	0.05*	0.02	[−0.01, 0.11]
Revision
βEF→REV	0.35**	0.08	[0.12, 0.55]	0.27**	0.07	[0.13, 0.53]		n/a	n/a	n/a
βMO→REV	0.09 ^ns	0.07	[−0.08, 0.26]	0.11*	0.04	[0.01, 0.22]		n/a	n/a	n/a
βSPELL→REV	0.41**	0.09	[0.16, 0.65]	0.21*	0.06	[0.08, 0.39]	βSPELL→EDIT→REV	0.16*	0.06	[0.05, 0.35]
βHW→REV	0.13*	0.05	[0.00, 0.26]	0.08*	0.02	[0.02, 0.15]	βHW→EDIT→REV	0.05*	0.02	[0.01, 0.11]
Writing
βEF→W	0.71**	0.09	[0.45, 0.94]	0.29 ^ns	0.16	[−0.49, 0.43]		n/a	n/a	n/a
βHW→W	0.39**	0.07	[0.20, 0.57]	0.09*	0.03	[0.02, 0.20]	βHW→EDIT→REV→W	0.01*	0.01	[0.00, 0.04]
βSPELL→W	0.32*	0.16	[−0.56, 0.57]	0.30*	0.10	[0.11, 0.67]	βSPELL→EDIT→REV→W	0.05*	0.01	[0.01, 0.12]
βPLAN→W	0.24**	0.07	[0.07, 0.39]	0.05*	0.02	[0.00, 0.14]	βPLAN→REV→W	0.04*	0.02	[−0.01, 0.10]
βEDIT→W	0.18*	0.09	[−0.05, 0.48]	0.09*	0.03	[0.02, 0.18]	βEDIT→REV→W	0.09*	0.03	[0.02, 0.18]

Note. ^nsNot significant; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.001. Direct effects are presented in Figure 2. n/a: total or total indirect effect was significant, but no specific indirect effects were statistically significant. Estimates with zero included in the confidence intervals were not considered to be significant. EDIT: editing; EF: Executive function; HW: handwriting; MO: motivation/self-efficacy; PLAN: planning; SPELL: spelling; REV: revision; W: writing.

Table A1. Correlations among observed measures.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1. TOWL handwriting	1.00
2. TOWL %WSC	0.14	1.00
3. WJ III Spelling	0.11	0.72	1.00
4. NIH – Working Memory	0.28	0.13	0.13	1.00
5. NIH – Fluency	−0.10	0.00	0.10	−0.01	1.00
6. NIH – Cognitive Control	−0.07	0.19	0.16	0.02	0.18	1.00
7. SCLS – Self-Efficacy	0.10	0.17	0.16	−0.02	−0.06	0.02	1.00
8. SCLS –Strategies	0.04	−0.02	0.01	−0.02	−0.16	−0.08	0.72	1.00
9. SCLS – Effort	0.10	0.17	0.14	0.12	−0.13	−0.04	0.72	0.66	1.00
10. TOWL Planning	0.17	0.06	0.21	0.14	0.06	−0.05	0.15	0.02	0.09	1.00
11. TOWL Editing	0.30	0.51	0.55	0.02	0.05	0.17	0.20	−0.05	0.14	0.27	1.00
12. TOWL Revision	0.11	0.34	0.43	0.13	0.03	0.08	0.11	−0.08	0.08	0.19	0.43	1.00
13. TOWL # words written	0.25	0.06	0.12	0.28	0.09	0.00	−0.04	−0.08	−0.05	0.26	0.18	0.24	1.00
14. TOWL 6-traits total	0.36	0.29	0.36	0.18	0.15	0.15	0.12	−0.10	0.09	0.27	0.38	0.41	0.44	1.00

Note. Correlations in bold were significant at p < 0.05. %WSC: percent of words spelled correctly; NIH: NIH Examiner; SCLS: Student Contextual Learning Scale; TOWL: Test of Written Language.

Table A2. Correlations among latent/observed variables from the NSVW model.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Handwriting	1
2. Spelling	0.37	1
3. Executive function	0.31	0.60	1
4. Motivation/self-efficacy	0.14	0.28	0.14	1
5. Planning	0.27	0.25	0.23	0.13	1
6. Editing	0.42	0.68	0.44	0.25	0.28	1
7. Revision	0.30	0.47	0.37	0.14	0.29	0.51	1
8. Writing	0.61	0.62	0.71	0.12	0.47	0.61	0.65

Berninger, V. W., & Winn, W. D. (2006). Implications of advancements in brain research and technology for writing development, writing instruction, and educational evolution. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 96–114). Guilford Press.

 Google Scholar