Multidimensional Levels of Language Writing Measures in Grades Four to Six

Abstract

This study examined multiple measures of written expression as predictors of narrative writing performance for 362 students in grades 4 through 6. Each student wrote a fictional narrative in response to a title prompt that was evaluated using a levels of language framework targeting productivity, accuracy, and complexity at the word, sentence, and discourse levels. Graderelated differences were found for all of the word-level and most of the discourse-level variables examined, but for only one sentence-level variable (punctuation accuracy). The discourse-level variables of text productivity, narrativity, and process use, the sentence-level variables of grammatical correctness and punctuation accuracy, and the word-level variables of spelling/capitalization accuracy, lexical productivity, and handwriting style were significant predictors of narrative quality. Most of the same variables that predicted story quality differentiated good and poor narrative writers, except punctuation accuracy and narrativity, and variables associated with word and sentence complexity also helped distinguish narrative writing ability. The findings imply that a combination of indices from across all levels of language production are most useful for differentiating writers and their writing. The authors suggest researchers and educators consider levels of

Performance feedback during writing instruction: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

“…Furthermore, building students’ stamina for writing more text is a beneficial outcome in itself (McCutchen, 2006). Because productivity is so closely related to different aspects of writing quality at this developmental stage (Kim et al, 2015; Nelson & Van Meter, 2007; Troia et al, 2019), increasing productivity may be one of the necessary components of increasing some aspects of writing quality (Truckenmiller et al, 2014). Finally, if writing productivity is the only thing some students need to improve, classwide performance feedback may reduce false positive rates by more accurately identifying students who need more intensive writing instruction (Nelson & Van Meter, 2007; Troia et al, 2019).…”

“…There are many effective instructional practices that incorporate substantive feedback to improve the quality of elementary students’ writing (e.g., Graham et al, 2012; Wilson & Czik, 2016), which is the ultimate goal of writing instruction. However, another important writing outcome in late elementary school is fluent writing production, because productivity is closely related to different aspects of writing quality at this developmental stage (Kim, Al Otaiba, Wanzek, & Gatlin., 2015; Nelson & Van Meter, 2007; Troia, Shen, & Brandon, 2019). Writing fluency is defined as a quantitative measure of the amount of text produced within a specific amount of time (Deno, Marston, & Mirkin, 1982).…”

“…It is also likely that students do not produce enough text for teachers to provide them with feedback on the quality of their writing. In later elementary grade levels, measures of writing productivity discriminate well between students along the developmental continuum, whereas accuracy and complexity measures rarely provide any additional information for discrimination (Nelson & Van Meter, 2007; Troia et al, 2019). The dependency of accuracy on productivity is evident in the current study as well (Truckenmiller et al, 2014).…”

Methodological Issues in Literacy Research Across Languages: Evidence From Alphabetic Orthographies

“…Globally, three main dimensions can be assessed: productivity (or fluency), accuracy, and complexity at the word, sentence, and discourse levels (Troia, Shen, & Brandon, 2019). Productivity refers to parameters about the quantity and rhythm of the composition.…”

Computing Numerical Images of Student Writing

“…Christie & Derewianka (2010), for instance, studied disciplinary and genre related differences in the writing trajectories of children aged 5-18. Others, such as Troia et al (2019) and Beers & Nagy (2011), have studied how different word and syntax level variables develop as a function of grade level. A shared feature in these studies is an interest in studying linguistic development in student texts across age levels using either a longitudinal or a cross-sectional design.…”