Phildurrantnet.files.wordpress.com



AuthorsYearFull CitationContextParticipantsText SampleGenresQuality ratingsAllard & Ulatowska1991Allard, L., & Ulatowska, H. K. (1991). Cohesion in written narrative and procedural discourse of fifth-grade children. Linguistics and Education, 3, 63-79.USAMiddle- to upper-middle class suburban school district. Participants randomly selected from several classes30 x 5th grade (10 years old)Two tasks: Narrative: retelling a folktale of the child’s choice; Procedure: explaining the rules for playing a sport of the child’s choice30 mins for each task.Transcribed with spelling errors corrected but punctuation, capitalization and grammar left intactNarrative; Procedure5-point holistic scale: very poor; poor; fair; good; excellent. 4 raters, IRR .89Balioussis, Johnson, Leone & Juan2012Balioussis, C., Johnson, J., & Pascual-Leone, J. (2012). Fluency and complexity in children's writing: the role of mental attention and executive function. Rivista di Psicolinguistica Applicata/Journal of Applied Psycholinguistics, XII(3), 33-45. Canada2 x schools, Greater Toronto area. Includes one private all-girl school35 x 3rd grade (M age 8.9; 10 males); 35 x 5th grade (M age 10.8; 13 males)Writing tasks based on US national assessment tasks.Two tasks (one per session): narrative; persuasive. Both based on written prompt (reproduced in article). Both on topic of spaceship/aliens.10 minutes to write.Pre-task prep: oral exercise in same genre but different topicNarrative; persuasiveNABar-ilan & Berman2007Bar-Ilan, L., & Berman, R. A. (2007). Developing register differentiation: the Latinate-Germanic divide in English. Linguistics, 45(1), 1-35.USAMultiple schools20 x grade 4 (age 9-10)20 x grade 7 (age 12-13)20 x grade 11 (age 16-17)20 x graduate student (age 20-40)Handwritten.Laboratory setting; administered by researchersVideo prompt shown before elicitation; students allowed to make rough drafts before submitting their final version; each student produced four texts (one spoken exposition, one written exposition, one spoken narrative, one written narrative); order of elicitation was balanced for both modality and genre; texts produced in two sessions on one day; order of elicitation balanced for both genre and modality.Timing not specifiedExpository; narrativeNABerman & Nir 2010Berman, R. A., & Nir, B. (2010). The lexicon in writing-speech-differentiation. Written Language and Literacy, 13(2), 183-205. Berman & Nir-Sagiv2007Berman, R. A., & Nir-Sagiv, B. (2007). Comparing narrative and expository text construction across adolescence: A developmental paradox. Discourse Processes, 43(2), 79-120.Bartlett1984Bartlett, E. J. (1984). Anaphoric reference in written narratives of good and poor elementary school writers. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 23, 540-552. USA.11 x public school classes39 x 5th grade50 x 6th grade37 x 7th grade(roughly 50% below-average, 50% above-average writers (as assessed by their teachers) in each group. Children below grade level in reading excluded from the study)2 x narrative writing tasks. Both involve writing story based on 7-panel cartoon. Tasks differ in the complexity of references required (since different approaches needed to distinguish between participants as plot unfolds - more difficult scenario requires finer distinctions to be made when referring)Plot 1: boy who falls through thin ice; plot 2: girl accidentally cut adrift in a boat40 minutes each to complete tasksNarrativeStudent attainment: children classed as above/below average by class teachers using the same criteria as they use when assessing achievement for permanent recordsBartlett & Scribner1981Bartlett, E. J., & Scriber, S. (1981). Text and content: An investigation of referential organization in children's written narratives. In C. H. Frederiksen & J. F. Dominic (Eds.), Writing: The nature, development, and teaching of written communication (Vol. 2, pp. 153-168). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.USA. New York City elementary, public schools7 x 3rd grade11 x 4th grade23 x 5th grade11 x 6th gradeParticipants asked to write a story from a prompt: ‘A man leaves his house. His body is found the next morning’NarrativeNABeers & Nagy2011Beers, S., & Nagy, W. E. (2011). Writing development in four genres from grades three to seven: syntactic complexity and genre differentiation. Reading and Writing, 24(183-202).USA Multiple primary & secondary schools, Pacific NorthwestAt start of study:128 x grade 1113 x grade 3Participants followed for 5 years.Students exposed to resource material relevant to particular task prior to elicitation; each student produced 8 texts (four genres); four genres per session; one session per year.5 mins writing timeCompare/contrast; descriptive; narrative; persuasiveNABerninger, Nagy & Beers2011Berninger, V. W., Nagy, W. E., & 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, 151-182. USALarge urban school district in Pacific North West Full sample2 cohorts over five years (241 students in total):All children entering 1st or 3rd grade in 51 local schools invited. Inclusion criteria: based on parental interview/questionnaire: no indication of brain disease, intellectual deficiency, primary language or motor disorders, autism spectrum or other pervasive developmental disorder, diagnosis of severe social emotional disturbance, or neurogenetic disorder associated with abnormal developmentFollowed for 5 years. 241 students in 1st year (128 cohort 1; 113 cohort 2), Attrition low (drops to 119 and 106 in each group)Also analyses for subset of students with learning disabilities in writing (at least 1SD below mean on Verbal IQ test vs. group with matched verbal ability but significantly different handwriting/spelling skillsStudy 1Cohort 1 1st grade/Cohort 2 3rd grade: write one good sentence about ‘My favourite thing at school’Cohort 2 2nd grad/Cohort 2 4th grade: write one good sentence about ‘writing’ Study 3Years 2 & 4 (Cohort 1: 2nd/4th grade; Cohort 2: 4th/6th grade): Sentence and essay tasks as Berninger, Abbott et al 2009 (both keyboard & pen). Years 3 & 5 (Cohort 1: 3rd/5th grade; Cohort 2: 5th/7th grade): Wrote narratives (pen & keyboard). 10 minutes per task:Narrative by pen: Children given the topic ‘One day at school a funny or surprising thing happened…’ and were asked to choose funny or surprising and add sentences to complete the story.Narrative by keyboard: Given topic ‘One weekend at home a funny or surprising thing happened…’ and given similar instructions.Wrote sentences:Pen: write one sentence about ‘My favourite thing at school…’Key: write one sentence about ‘My favourite thing at home…’Exploratory; narrativeNABerse 1974Berse, P. (1974). Criteria for the assessment of pupils' compositions. Educational Research, 17(1), 54-61.USA7 x primary schools; wide geographical area233 x grade 4 (age 10-11)Handwritten.Classroom setting; administered by class teacher; each student produced one text (one with tape prompt, one with title prompt)Timing not specifiedImaginative5-point scale evaluating 'internal cohesion and organic development' of the text.Blatchford 1991Blatchford, P. (1991). Children's writing at 7 years: Associations with handwriting on school entry and pre-school factors. British Journal of Edcucational Psychology, 61, 73-84.UK33 x infant schools; inner London331 x year 2 (mean age 7;6)Handwritten.School setting; each student produced one monologic "text" requiring them to recount and finish a story read to them by a teacher (each student also produced one set of sentences describing a set of pictures).Maximum 60 mins writing time for story text.StoryScored by two raters. Sum of 5 point analytic scales for cohesion; complexity; creativity; sense of personality; sense of flair; appropriateness: retelling; appropriateness: finishing. IRR.89Blount, Johnson & Fredrick1969Blount, N. S., Johnson, S. L., & Fredrick, W. C. (1969). A comparison of the writing of eighth- and twelfth-grade students. Madison, Wisconsin: Wilsconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning, The University of Wisconsin.USA2 schools in Mantiwoc, Wisconsin32 x grade 8 (13-14)32 x grade 12 (17-18)1000 word compositions (separate pieces summing to 1000 words), part of regular class assignment. Topics determined by teachers and students. Collected over several months. Not specifiedNABourke & Adams 2003Bourke, L., & Adams, A.-M. (2003). The relationship between working memory and early writing assessed at the word, sentence and text level. Educational and Child Psychology, 20(3), 19-36.UKSchools in Liverpool60 x children selected from larger sample based on spread of phonological memory and IQ scores. Mean age 6;11. 32 females, 28 malesHandwritten.Unspecified setting.Children write based on one of two sets of pictures: a visit to the doctor; a birthday party.No time limit.StoryHolistic 6-point scale, based on National Curriculum Key Stage 1 performance criteriaBourke & Adams2011Bourke, L., & Adams, A.-M. (2011). Is it differences in language skills and working memory that account for girls being better at writing than boys. Journal of Writing Research, 3(3), 249-277.UK4 x schools in Liverpool, low to high SES67 x reception year students. Mean age 4;9.36 females; 31 males Handwritten.Administered by researcher.Story based on a set of four pictures.No time limit.StoryHolistic 9-point scale (Early Years Foundation Stage Profile)Cameron et al 1995Cameron, C. A., Lee, K., Webster, S., Munro, K., Hunt, A. K., & Linton, M. J. (1995). Text cohesion in children's narrative writing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 16, 257-269.CanadaElementary school in small city50 x grade 4. Mean age 9;10Handwritten.Classroom setting.Story writing based on 3 cartoon pictures. 50% of children do 'free-writing;; 50% write after listening to example storyStoryTwo raters score on holistic 5-point scale. IRR: kappa=.75. Disagreements resolved by discussion.Clendon & Erikson 2008Clendon, S. A., & Erikson, K. A. (2008). The vocabulary of beginning writers: Implications for children with complex communication needs. Augmentative and alternative communication, 24(4), 281-293.USA; New Zealand4 schools in North Carolina. Kindergarten and grades 1-3.3 schools in New Zealand. Years 1-4Assigned 'school age' based on numbers of years in schoolUSA: 14 x 1 year (mean age:5;7)58 x 2 years (mean age 6;7)34 x 3 years (mean age 7.6)19 x 4 years (mean age 8;6)New Zealand:32 x 1 year (mean age 5;7)49 x 2 years (mean age 6;6)25 x 3 years (mean age 7;6)7 x 4 years (mean age 8;4)Handwritten.Classroom setting.Teachers provide opportunities to write about self-selected topics at least 3 times per week for 6 weeks.Not specifiedN/AConnor1990Connor, U. (1990). Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 24(1), 67-87.Multinational: USA; UK; New Zealand150 x 16-year oldsAll texts produced as part of the 1982 International Study of Written Composition (cf. Purves & Takala, 1982), with the study here focusing on the persuasive texts.Persuasion5-point holistic scale. Rated by 3rd year PhD students in Rhetoric & Composition. IRR=.83 Connor1995Connor, U. (1995). Examining syntactic variation across three English-speaking nationalities through a multifeature/multidimensional approach. In D. L. Rubin (Ed.), Composing social identity in written language. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum associates.Multinational: USA; UK; New Zealand150 x 16-year oldsAll texts produced as part of the International Association for Evaluation of Educational Achievement, with all students producing one persuasive essay. 50 minutes time limitPersuasion5-point holistic scale. Rated by 3rd year PhD students in Rhetoric & Composition. IRR=.83Corson 1985Corson, D. (1985). The lexical bar. Oxford: Pergamon.AustraliaTwo secondary comprehensive schools: one private, one state school in working-class areaChildren aged 12 vs. 15 yearsHandwritten; unknown setting; research administered; each (Australian) student gave oral and written descriptive and expository responses to a questionnaire designed to elicit extended responses (but seemingly not longer than paragraph length).No time limit specified.Not specifiedNACox, Shanahan & Shulzby1990Cox, B. E., Shanahan, T., & Sulzby, E. (1990). Good and poor elementary readers' use of cohesion in writing. Research Research Quarterly, 25(1), 47-65.USAMiddle-income students in four suburban elementary schools near Chicago. Diverse SES and ethnic background24 x grade 3 24 x grade 5At each grade, 50% high, 50% low reading ability. Randomly selected from 96 students at each grade levelEach child writes: 2 x narrative, based on pictures; 2 x expository (report writing), based on articlesIn each case, class discussion before writing.Narrative; Expository4 point holistic scale. Each text marked independently by two experienced teachers. IRR=.91.Crossley, Allen & McNamara2014Crossley, S. A., Allen, L. K., & McNamara, D. (2014). A Multi-Dimensional analysis of essay writing: What linguistic features tell us about situational parameters and the effects of language functions on judgments of quality? In T. B. Sardinha & M. V. Pinto (Eds.), Multi-Dimensional Analysis, 25 years on: A tribute to Douglas Biber (pp. 197-233). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.USASampled from 5 broad geographical regions91 x 9th grade550 x 10th grade266 x 11th grade622 x college freshmen1,529 argumentative essays. Some handwritten, some typed. Various (or not) time limitsArgumentative essayEach essay evaluated by two graders using standardized SAT rubric. Holistic 1-6 scale. IRR=.7. Mean score from two raters used unless difference >=2, in which case 3rd grader adjudicated.Crossley, Roscoe & McNamara2014Crossley, S. A., Roscoe, R., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). What is successful writing? An investigation into the multiple ways writers can write successful essays. Written Communication, 31(2), 184-214.US9th grade (12%)11th grade (12%)College freshman (76%)Based on larger corpus of 1,631 argumentative essays from 16 different prompts. Essays are untimed or written under one of 3 time limits (10-, 15-, 25-minute).148 essays rated >=4.5 for quality used for study. Based on 11 different prompts. 33% untimed; 3% 15 minute constraint; 64% 25-minute constraint Argumentative essay2-3 expert raters independently rate each paper on 6-point scale developed for SAT. IRR> .7Crossley, Weston, McLain Sullivan & McNamara2011Crossley, S. A., Weston, J. L., Sullivan, S. T. M., & McNamara, D. (2011). The development of writing proficiency as a function of grade level: A linguistic analysis. Written Communication, 28, 282-311.USA9th grade essays collected from suburban school district in upstate New York, 11th grade essays collected from single school in suburban Washington DC, Freshmen essays collected from Mississippi State University62 x 9th grade (assumed ages 14-15)70 x 11th grade (assumed ages 16-17)70 x College freshman (assumed ages 18-19)Handwritten. Part of writing course requirements. All texts produced in response to argumentative prompts from the Scholastic Achievement Test, with the 11th grade utilising only one prompt, but the 9th and university students writing in response to 1 of 2 prompts25 mins writing time.Argumentative essayRated independently by 2 expert raters using 6-point scale developed for SAT. Holistic rating. IRR > .7Crowhurst1980aCrowhurst, M. (1980a). Syntactic complexity and teachers' quality ratings of narrations and arguments. Research in the Teaching of English, 14(3), 223-231.CanadaTwo high schools in Manitoba223 x grade 6; 228 x grade 10; 206 x grade 12.Subset of texts chosen for analysis. These are pairs, each written by a single writer, where one text has high and one low syntactic complexity (as measured by T-score). Gives total of:56 x Grade 6 narration;52 x Grade 6 argument;32 x Grade 10 narration;48 x Grade 10 argument;38 x Grade 12 narration;58 x Grade 12 argumentEach student produced 3 texts in response to pictoral prompts. Texts on three different topics, each topic written for two different audiences. One text written per week. Two genres elicited, with each student writing in one genre only.40 minute time limit.Narrative; argumentFor each grade level, texts graded by four teachers currently teaching English at that level. Each text given 7-point holistic score and scores in seven scales which 'together represent a general composition quality factor'. Each scale on 7-points.'Holistic score', 'composition-quality-score' and 'sentence structure score' used for analysis. No information about double marking or inter-rater reliability.Crowhurst1980bCrowhurst, M. (1980b). Syntactic complexity in narration and argument at three grade levels. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l'éducation, 5(1), 6-13. Crowhurst, M. (1987). Cohesion in argument and narration at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 21(2), 185-201.CanadaTwo high schools in Manitoba223 x grade 6; 228 x grade 10; 206 x grade12For analysis, randomly selects80 x grade 6 (mean age 12.1)80 x grad 10 (mean age 16.1)80 x grade 12 (mean age 17.9)Sample balanced for gender and genre.Each student produced 3 texts in response to pictoral prompts. Texts on three different topics, each topic written for two different audiences. One text written per week. Two genres elicited, with each student writing in one genre only.40 minute time limit.Narrative; argumentNACrowhurst1987Crowhurst, M. (1987). Cohesion in argument and narration at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 21(2), 185-201.CanadaFour elementary schools ina a largely middle-class area of a small city223 x 6th grade (8 different classes)228 x 10th grade (11 different classes)206 x 12th grade (12 different classes)Participants randomly assigned to write either narrative or argument.Writing in response to a photo. 40 mins.Analysis based on 35 texts from each mode for each grade level. Balanced male vs. female.Narrative; ArgumentNACrowhurst & Piche1979Crowhurst, M., & Piche, G. L. (1979). Audience and mode of discourse effects on syntactic complexity in writing at two grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 13(2), 101-109. USAOne high school and two elementary schools in Minneapolis120 x grade 6 (mean age 11.9)120 x grade 10 (mean age 15.9)(selected at random from larger sample of 198 x grade 6, 161 x grade 10)Each student produced 6 texts in response to pictorial prompts. Texts on three different topics, each topic written for two different audiences: best friend vs. teacher. One text written per week. Three genres elicited, with each student writing in one genre only.40 minute time limitNarrative; description; argumentNADean & Quinlan2010Deane, P., & Quinlan, T. (2010). What automated analyses of corpora can tell us about students' writing skills. Journal of Writing Research, 2(2), 151-177.USA12,000 students at grades 4, 6, 8, 10, 12. For this study, sample of 17,586 texts used. Each student wrote either persuasive essays or descriptive essays. Each student wrote two such essays, one using the prompt for their own grade level and one using the prompt for the next highest grade level; order of elicitation balanced, with random assignment to conditions. 30 minute time limitNarrative; persuasionHolistic rating (from Attali, Y. & Powers, D. (2008). A developmental writing scale. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service)Dilworth, Reising & Wolfe1978Dilworth, C. B., Reising, R. W., & Wolfe, D. T. (1978). Language structure and thought in written composition: certain relationships. Research in the Teaching of English, 12(2), 97-106.USARandom sample of 100 high schools from single geographical area and school system (North Carolina), from which 51 teachers participated and 45 supplied usable data (suggests 45 x high school)90 children aged 14-18Participants wrote one piece in response to a poem, with a choice of task either explain what the poem means or explain how it makes them feel; participants instructed to write 200-300 words on their chosen response; participation involved whole classes, from which each teacher selected that text deemed to be the best and that deemed most typical.Expository; argumentTeacher selects one paper from each group as 'superior' and one as 'typical'Dobbs2014Dobbs, C. L. (2014). Signaling organization and stance: academic language use in middle grade persuasive writing. Reading and Writing, 27, 1327-1352.USA1 x large middle school; state; urban; northeastern USA66 x 6th grade60 x 7th grade40 x 8th gradeEach student wrote 5 persuasive essays in weeks 1, 5, 8. 12, and 15 of the curriculum, as part of the "Word Generation" academic vocabulary program, with each essay covering a distinct topic; not all essays included, however, with participants retained only if they produced at least two essays during these weeks.12-15 minutes times limitPersuasiveRubric from Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS): 20-point holistic measure of quality based on two analytic trait scores: topic (12 point)/idea development and conventions (8-point). Researcher also adds global quality score.Each text marked by two scorers with experience at middle-school level. Exact or adjacent score agreement requiredEdwards & Juliebo1989Edwards, J. M., & Juliebo, M. F. (1989). The effect of topic choice on narrative writing: grades 1-3. English Quarterly, 21(247-257).USAOne class11 x grade 1 (grade 3 at end of study)Longitudinal across three years. Each student wrote two narratives in the May of each year. Students allowed 'considerable' time to research and discuss each task before writing. Total 66 textsNarrativeNAFagan1981Fagan, W. T. (1981). A longitudinal study of grade five and grade eleven students' written language and a comparison with teachers' written language. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 27(3), 217-231.Canada16 students? x AdultsEach participant wrote generally one expository letter following exposure to various topic-relevant materials (a film loop, a filmstrip, pictures, newspaper clippings). Eight of the 11th grade students were also participants for 5th grade and so wrote two piecesExpository letterNAFang2002Fang, Z. (2002). The construction of literate understanding in a literature-based classroom. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(1), 109-126.USA1 multi-grade class in urban school in south-east19 children in multigrade class (grades 1-3; ages 6-8)Each student wrote a total of 3 narratives and 3 expositions over the course of a year, with one of each genre produced on separate days during a single week September, January, and May. 30-45 minutes time limit.Expository; narrativeNAFang & Park2020Fang, Z., & Park, J. (2020). Adolescents' use of academic language in informational writing. Reading & Writing, 33, 97-119.USAA K-12 pubic school48 x grade 745 x grade 9Participants asked to write an informational text in response to a spoken prompt and using picture prompts.No time limit (but all students complete in 45-60 minutes).Informational6 x 6-point scales (ideas/content; organization; conventions; voice; sentence fluency; word choice) by 2 former classroom teachers. IRR=.69. Average grade from two teachers used as final score.Finn1977Finn, P. J. (1977). Computer-aided description of mature word choices in writing. In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing: Describing, Measuring, Judging (pp. 69-89). Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.USAStudents in Rochester, New York area36 x grade 434 x grade 831 x grade 11Some students originally included in data collection were not able to complete task, so sample may be above average abilityTexts collected for previous project. Each student writes one essay in response to written prompt asking students to express and justify their feelings on a topic.Argumentative essayNAFitzgerald & Spiegel1986Fitzgerald, J., & Spiegel, D. L. (1986). Textual Cohesion and Coherence in Children's Writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 20(3), 263-280.USATwo classes in one middle-class school.27 x grade 3 22 x grade 6 Each child wrote two stories; one on each of two days.Brief story stems given:"Once there was a thin man named Fred. He lived near the sea""Bob was a large hippo. He lived at the edge of a muddy river"After reading stem, children have time for planning, then given 30 minutes to write. 3 children not completing in this time allowed to complete another dayStory6-point holistic scale, based on 7 dimensions. IRR=.86Fox1982Fox, B. (1982). Cognitive and stylistic features of reporting and classificatory writing by senior high school students. Retrieved from on 13th August 2019.Canada60 x grade 1060 x grade 12For each grade, 30 students with high and 30 with low average scores.Each student wrote reporting tasks and classificatory tasks over a period of one month. Reporting tasks:Describing first day at schoolReporting on most interesting TV show they had recently watchedClassification tasks:The problems of old ageCrimeTotal 480 compositions. Study only analysed texts up to end of T-unit in which 400th word occurred.Reporting; classificationStudents, rather than texts, are classified for attainmentGolub & Frederick 1970Golub, L. S., & Fredrick, W. C. (1970). An analysis of children's writing under different stimulus conditions. Research in the Teaching of English, 4(2), 168-180. USA80 X grade 4 (ages 9-10)80 x grade 6 (ages 11-12)HandwrittenClassroom setting160 texts produced in response to one picture prompt and one instruction sheet. 20 prompts used overall and two instruction sheets, with prompts balanced according to concrete/abstract imagery and colour/black&white, and sheets balanced according to whether instructions were specific or general.Timed: 30 minutes.Not specifiedDivided into four levels by three raters on basis of holistic impression. IRRs: .635; .655; .800.Three final bands. Papers categorized in top or bottom band by two or more raters scored high scored low. Others scored middleGrobe 1981Grobe, C. (1981). Syntactic Maturity, Mechanics, and Vocabulary as Predictors of Quality Ratings. Research in the Teaching of English, 15(1), 75-85. CanadaUnknown schools but extensive (possibly comprehensive) coverage of New Brunswick School systemSampled in two stages from approx. 7,500 x grade 5 (ages 10-11); 8,000 x grade 8 (ages 13-14); 6,700 x grade 11 (ages 16-17).Stage 1:153 x grade 5;151 x grade 8;133 x grade 11Stage 2: approx.:50 x grade 5;50 x grade 8;50 x grade 11HandwrittenUnknown setting and administrationAll texts elicited as part of the 1979 implementation of the New Brunswick (Canada) Writing Assessment Program (WAP); each participant wrote one text, with each grade assigned a single topic that varied with the gradeNo time specified.NarrativeHolistic scoreHall-Mills & Apel2015Hall-Mills, S., & Apel, K. (2015). Linguistic feature development across grades and genre in elementary writing. Language, speech and hearing services in schools, 36, 242-255. USA28 x 2nd grade33 x 3rd grade28 x 4th gradeEach participant produced 1 x narrative and 1 x expository (prompts in article, p.246). 15 mins for each taskNarrative; expositoryNAHarpin1976Harpin, W. S. (1976). The Second 'R': Writing development in the junior school. London: Taylor and Francis.UK9 schools300 children, representative of junior school population, aged 7;0-9;11Children produce 4 texts in each of 6 terms across two years. 2 x creative texts; 2 x factual. For each type: one with ‘minimal’, the other with ‘full’ verbal preparationGives total 6,000 textsCreative; FactualNAHarrell Jr.1957Harrell Jr., L. E. (1957). A comparison of the development of oral and written language in school-age children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 22(3), 1-77.USA80 x 6th grade (11 years old)80 x 8th grade (13 years old)80 x 10th grade (15 years old)Each age group = 40 boys + 40 girlsChildren shown a short film The Three Bears Make Mischief and asked to write the story of the film.NarrativeNAHaslett1983Haslett, B. J. (1983). Children's strategies for maintaining cohesion in their written and oral stories. Communication Education, 32(1), 91-105.USA31 x 6-year old24 x 7-year oldEach participant produced a written story (written in two 15 minute periods over two days) and told a story orally. This was done twice, with four month between collection pointsNarrativeNAHillocks1964Hillocks Jr., G. (1964). An analysis of some syntactic patterns in ninth grade themes. The Journal of Educational Research, 57(8), 417-420.USA9th grade (unknown number)Papers already written for school work. 35 x grade A39 x grade B35 x grade CExpository; narrativeLetter grade previously awarded by class teacherHoldich, Holdich & Chung2002Holdich, C. E., Holdich, R. G., & Chung, P. W. H. (2002). Assessing aspects of children's written grammar: automating the process. Computers and Education, 39, 27-50.UKSAT writing test12 x Year 6 (assumed age 11)Handwritten; all pieces produced through the national exams set for Yr6 students in England and Wales (i.e. SAT writing test). Texts are examples of texts at different quality levels published by School Curriculum and Assessment Authority.NarrativeNational Curriculum Level scores, as awarded by examination authority.Houck & Billingsley1989Houck, C. K., & Billingsley, B. S. (1989). Written expression of students with and without learning disabilities: Differences across the grades. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(9), 561-572.USA18 schools in a medium-sized urban public school system serving a heterogeneous student population. 32 x Grade 4 (mean age 10.3)32 x Grade 8 (mean age 14.3)32 x Grade 11 (mean age 17.4)At each age, 50% participants with learning difficulties)Gathered by regular class teachers. Write for 20 mins in response to written prompt.You are to write about a trip that would be fun to take. Write about where you would like to go, who would go along and what you might see and do along the way.Not specifiedNAHunt1965Hunt, K. W. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. NCTE research report No.3. Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.USFlorida State University School18 x grade 4 (9-10)18 x grade 8 (13-14)18 x grade 12 (17-18)Teachers asked to have each student write more than 1,000 words over ‘trimester’. Subject matter whatever they normally write about in school. Writing done in class and not altered by anyone else.Texts from each student were cut off at the end of the sentence closest to the 1000th word.Not specifiedNAJohnson & Grant(Study one])1989Johnson, D. J., & Grant, J. O. (1989). Written narratives of normal and disabled children. Annals of dyslexia, 39, 140-158.USAAll children from two elementary school districts in Midwest. One rural with lower middle to middle class families; one suburban with middle to upper middle class families. Children receiving special service or gifted students excluded112 x 2nd grade (M age 6;7)91 x 3rd grade. (M age 7;8)92 x 5th grade (M age 8;8)Picture story language test: students write story based on picture prompt.StoryNAKim, Otaiba, Folsom, Greulich & Puranik2014Kim, Y.-S., Al Otaiba, S., Folsom, J. S., Greulich, L., & Puranik, C. S. (2014). Evaluating the dimensionality of first-grade written composition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57, 199-211. USA7 x primary schools527 x grade 1Each student wrote a story based on the same narrative prompt. 5 minute time limitNarrativeAdaption of 6 + 1 Traits for Writing Rubric for Primary Grades. Excludes 'voice'; separates 'mechanics' from 'spelling'; renames 'presentation' 'handwriting'. Each component scored on 5-point scaleKing & Rentel1982King, M. L., & Rentel, V. M. (1982). Transition to writing: Final Report. Volume II. Washington, DC.: National Institute of Education.USA One urban, one suburban suburban school in a large mid-western city. No details for kindergarten-grade 1 groupLongitudinal study (15 months). 36 x children followed from grades 1 to 2 (24 from urban school (50% of these are speakers of black vernacular); 12 from suburban school)Texts collected three times: March 1979, October 1979, May 1980.3 types of text collected:Story retelling: Stories were read to children. They then orally retell the story to a second person.Dictated story data: children dictate an original story of their ownStory writing: In class writing (around one hour) with preparationStory writing only included in our analysisStoriesNAKoutsoftas & Gray 2012Koutsoftas, A. D., & Gray, S. (2012). Comparison of narrative and expository writing in students with and without language-learning disabilities. Language, speech and hearing services in schools, 43, 395-409.USA5 x schools in 3 school districts in Arizona.4th/5th grade students.30 x typically developing (TD)(mean age 10.35)26 x students with language learning disabilities (LLD) (mean age 10.77)Handwritten.Unspecified setting.Each participant produces one narrative and one expository text based on prompts from state-mandated tests.No time limitExpository; NarrativeGraded by two raters each using six trait writing rubric. Six-point scales for ideas and content, organization, voice, word choice, sentence fluency, conventions. Raters some to agreement on each score. Yields total score from 6-36. 14 papers randomly selected for second scoring differences greater than 1 point: narrative 88.89%, expository 84.44%Kroll1983Kroll, B. M. (1983). Antecedents of individual differences in children's writing attainment. In B. M. Kroll & G. Wells (Eds.), Explorations in the development of writing (pp. 95-118). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.UK15 x junior school classes18 students (mean age 9.4)Each student wrote four pieces of writing, with participants forming a subset of the Bristol Longitudinal Development ProjectExpressive; Narrative; PersuasiveComposite scale derived from the scores for each of the four tasks, with the raw scores converted into z scores that were then averaged and the average score converted to T scores. Scales for the narrative and expressive task were both holistic in nature, the persuasive letters were scored by assessing the adequacy with which the writer created a context for the transaction and by identifying specific appeals used to persuade the recipient, and the instructional texts were scored by assessing the degree to which the rules of the game were adequately communicatedLanger1984Langer, J. A. (1984). The effects of available information on responses to school writing tasks. Research in the Teaching of English, 18(1), 27-44.USA4 x American history classes in San Francisco taught by two teachers99 x grade 10Each student wrote two pieces during a single semester, as set by their class teacherExpositoryTexts assessed by two raters using five-point holistic scale (IRR=.79)Student achievement also assessed using California Text of Basic SkillsLawton1963Lawton, D. (1963). Social class differences in language development: A study of some samples of written work. Language and Speech, 6(3), 120-143.UK2 groups from secondary modern school in working-class area; 2 groups from independent school in middle-class area.10 x year N (mean age 12;2)10 x years N (mean age 14;10)Groups matched for verbal and non-verbal intelligence. SES of individual boys checked based on fathers' (sic) occupation.Each boy asked to write 4 x essays: 1 x rewriting a story; 2 x title prompt; 1 x explaining a topic.30 minute time limit for each essay.Expository; NarrativeNALoban1976Loban, W. (1976). Language develoment: Kindergarten through grade twelve. NCTE Committee on Research Report No. 18. Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.USARepresentative cross-section of participants across the city of OaklandStudents followed throughout schooling from grade 3 to grade 12. Starts with 338. Reduced to 211 by end of study. For purposes of analysis, selects 35 high ability, 35 low ability and 35 random, based on average teacher’s evaluation of language across period of study.Longitudinal study. One written composition per year (grades 3-12). For grades 10, 11, 12 two or more compositions collected per year.Not specifiedNALorge & Kruglov1951Lorge, I., & Kruglov, L. (1950). The relationship between the readability of pupils' compositions and their measured intelligence. The Journal of Educational Research, 43(6), 467-474.USASecondary schools in a single geographical area82 x grade 8-9 (ages 13-15)Each student wrote one composition of about 100 words from a choice of topicsExpositoryImpression marking yielding relative "ranking" of texts within sampleMalvern, Richards, Chipere & Duran2004Malvern, D., Richards, B. J., Chipere, N., & Duran, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.UKPrimary and Secondary schools (number/location not specified).Key Stage 1 (age 7);Key Stage 2 (age 11);Key Stage 3 (age 14)Handwritten. Classroom setting; teacher administered.All texts originally produced for research conducted by UCLES.60 minutes writing time.NarrativeGraded on 8pt scale (2001 National Curriculum Attainment Levels) by University of Cambridge Local Examination SyndicateMassey & Elliot1996Massey, A. J., & Elliott, G. L. (1996). Aspects of Writing in 16+ English examinations between 1980 & 1994. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate.UKData collected across several years from variable number of schools. 1996 study does not include 2004 data:1980: 299 schools;1993: 22 schools;1994: 50 schools;2004: 58 schoolsUnknown geographical area, but likely nationwide sample1,679 x Year 11 (assumed age 16-17)(1996 study: 1,119 x Year 11)HandwrittenExam setting; invigilator administered; All texts produced as part of the 16+ English exams set for school leaversVariable writing time: 1980: 90 mins for two question exam;1993:120 mins for two question exam;1994 & 2004: advised not to spend more than 45 mins;NarrativeProfessionally examined. 8pt scale for whole sample GCSE grades A*-F, but 1980:only A-E & 1993: only A-GMassey, Elliot & Johnson2005Massey, A. J., Elliott, G. L., & Johnson, N. K. (2005). Variations in aspects of writing in 16+ English examinations between 1980 and 2004: Vocabulary, spelling, punctuation, sentence structure, non-standard English. Cambridge: Cambridge Assessment.McClure & Platt1988McClure, E., & Platt, E. (1988). The development of the expression of temporality in the written English narratives of monolingual American and bilingual Mexican pupils. World Englishes, 7(2), 197-210. USAPrivate schools in large cities4th and 9th grade native and non-native (Mexican) speakers of English. 10 stories each from 8 classes chosen randomly for analysis.Narratives based on one or two silent animated ‘animal fable’ films. Completed in 60 min class period. Texts vary from 113 to 739 words.NarrativeNAMcCulley1985McCulley, G. A. (1985). Writing Quality, Coherence, and Cohesion. Research in the Teaching of English, 19(3), 269-282. USA17 year olds (number not specified, but 120 texts)All texts originally elicited as part of the National Assessment of Educational Progress for 1978-9, with the present analysis conducted on a random sample of the persuasive texts therein. 20 texts from each of 6 coherence score pointsPersuasive (written speech)Quality measure = 5-point persuasive writing quality score (National Assessment of Educational Progress)Cohesion scored by two raters on 8-point scale (National Assessment of Educational Progress). Top and bottom two bands later collapsed to form 6-point scale. IRR=.96McCutchen1986McCutchen, D. (1986). Domain knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development of writing ability. Journal of memory and language, 25(431-444). USA10 x Grade 410 x Grade 610 x Grade 8All participants are male. For each age group, 5 show high and 5 low knowledge of American football in screening text. High and low knowledge groups at each age level have similar mean readingability)Each child produces 8 texts: 4 on football; 4 on their school or people they knew.4 texts are written; 4 spoken4 texts are essays; 4 narrativesNarrative; essayNAMcCutchen& Perfetti1982McCutchen, D., & Perfetti, C. A. (1982). Coherence and Connectedness in the Development of Discourse Production. Pittsburgh: Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh.USAGrade 2, Grade 4, Grade 6, Grade 8 (numbers not specified)Initial and final sentences of each text provided to the student. These sentences contained a blank for the child to choose his/her own topicNarrative; essayNAMoore 1977Moore, E. M. (1977). Lexical characteristics of adolexcent prose: writer and task effects. British Journal of Edcucational Psychology, 47, 285-295. UK5 x grammar schools in Northern Ireland819 x year 3/6th form. Numbers per year group not given.3rd year ages 14;2-14;66th form ages 17;3-17;9HandwrittenClassroom settingSchools 2 & 4: wrote compositions elicited by a stimulus intended to encourage argumentative-expository writing (stimulus relates to giving views on how money should be spend on a town re-development project).School 3: wrote narrative-descriptive task based on short passage from novelSchools 1 & 5: did both of the above.? hour for each task.Texts shorter than 200 words removed from analysisArgumentative-expositoryNarrative-descriptiveN/AMorris & Crump1982Morris, N. T., & Crump, W. D. (1982). Syntactic and vocabulary development in the written language of learning disabled and non-learning disabled students at four age levels. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5(2), 163-172. USA Public school system, urban and rural areas18 x normal + 18 x learning disabled children at each of 4 age groups:9;0 – 10;610;7 – 12;012;1 – 13;613;7 – 15;0All participants white males. Normal vs. disabled groups matched for age, IQ, school/grade placement.Participants watch two films without narration. Given standard prompts for writing.Texts edited for spelling and punctuation.Not specifiedNAMulac, Studley & Blau1990Mulac, A., Studley, L. B., & Blau, S. (1990). The gender-linked language effect in primary and secondary students' impromptu essays. Sex roles, 23(9/10), 439-469. USASingle public school system (Santa Barbara, CA), with predominantly white upper-middle class demographic 32 x grade 4 (9-10) 32 x grade 8 (13-14) 32 x grade 12 (17-18)Sample randomly selected from larger set. Only text up to first paragraph break after 80 words included in analysisEssay on the topic 'Is it important to tell the truth? Can it ever be better to lie?'Not specifiedNAMyhill1999Myhill, D. (1999). Writing matters: linguistic characteristics of writing in GCSE English examinations. English in Education, 33(3). UK144 GCSE candidates288 x GCSE writing scripts graded at "borderline grades A, C, or F." Two texts from each candidate. 144 x narrative, 144 x non-narrativeNarrative & non-narrativeGCSE grades previously awardedMyhill2008Myhill, D. (2008). Towards a linguistic model of sentence development in writing. Language and Education, 22(5), 271-288. UK6 x secondary schools718 texts from Year 8 (assumed ages 12-13) and Year 10 (assumed ages 14-15). Sample stratified for year group, assessment grade awarded; genderHandwritten.Classroom texts; classroom setting; administered by class teachers.Analysis is of 100 word samples from each text only.No time limit specified.Argument;NarrativeYear 8 texts graded to National Curriculum criteria.Year 10 texts graded using GCSE grades.For analysis, both sets of grades reduced to 3-point scale.Myhill 2009Myhill, D. (2009). From talking to writing: Linguistic development in writing. BJEP Monograph Series II, Number 6 - Teaching and Learning Writing, 27(44), 27-44.Nelson & Van Meter 2007Nelson, N. W., & Van Meter, A. M. (2007). Measuring written language ability in narrative samples. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23(3), 287-309. USA17 x classrooms; 4 x schools; 2 x public school districts within metropolitan area of a mid-sized, racially diverse Midwestern city11 x grade 1 (age 6-7);66 x grade 2 (age 7-8);113 x grade 3 (age 8-9);48 x grade 4 (age 9-10);39 x grade 5 (age 10-11)Handwritten. Unknown setting; researcher administered.Each participant wrote one story in response to a generic prompt.50-60 minute writing session.StoryNANippold, Ward-Londergan & Fanning2005Nippold, M. A., Ward-Lonergan, J. M., & Fanning, J. L. (2005). Persuasive writing in children, adolescents, and adults: A study of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic development. Language, speech and hearing services in schools, 36(2), 125-138.USA. Participants drawn from two geographical areas (California and Western Oregon)60 x children (10;6-13;5, mean 11;9)60 x adolescents (16;3-18;6, mean17;3)60 x adults (19;2-43;5, mean 24;10)Each participant wrote one persuasive essay in response to a specific question, with all responses recorded in a bespoke booklet containing topic-relevant picture prompts.20 minute time limit.PersuasiveNANoyce & Christie1985Noyce, R., & Christie, J. (1985). Characteristics of subordinate clauses in children's free writing. Journal of research and development in education, 18(68-71). USA9 x schools in one geographic areaGrades 3 & 5Each student asked to produce one piece of "free writing" without being told or prompted what to write. 369 texts in totalFree writing (mostly narratives)NAO'Donnell, Griffin & Norris1967O'Donnell, R. C., Griffin, W. J., & Norris, R. C. (1967). Syntax of kindergarten and elementary school children: A transformational analysis. Champaign, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.USA1x primary & secondary school. Single geographical area30 x grade 3 (8-9)30 x grade 5 (10-11)30 x grade 7 (12-13)Each student produced one spoken and one written recount of wordless film prompts depicting episodes from Aesop's Fables.NarrativeN/AOlinghouse & Graham 2009Olinghouse, N. G., & Graham, S. (2009). The relationship between the discourse knowledge and the writing performance of elementary-grade students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 37-50. USA4 x schools; 13 x classrooms in a large urban district in southeastern US.32 x grade 2 (mean age 7.6);32 x grade 4 (mean age 9.6)Participants selected using the Spontaneous Writing composite of TOWL-3, with 8 students below the 25th percentile, 16 students between the 25th and 75th percentile, and 8 students above the 75th percentile selected at each grade.Handwritten.Administered by researchers. Pictorial prompts; students produced one piece of writing in response to three possible topics, with these topics previously found to have no differentiating effect on performance; 5 minutes planning time; 15 minutes writing time.NarrativeAnalytic scale composed of 3 x 7pt ratings: organization; development of plot/characters/setting; narrative creativity.2 x raters: IRR=.83Olinghouse & Leaird 2009Olinghouse, N. G., & Leaird, J. T. (2009). The relationship between measures of vocabulary and narrarive writing quality in second- and fourth-grade students. Reading and Writing, 22, 545-565. USA4 x elementary schools in an urban district in southesaterns USA.92 x 2nd grade (assumed age 7-8);101 x 4th grade (assumed age 9-10)Those writing less than 40 words in Test of Written Language excluded from analysis of second writing prompt. This leaves:80 x 2nd grade98 x 4th gradeHandwritten.Administered by researchers.Experimental story: Pictorial prompts; students produced one piece of writing in response to three possible topics 5 minutes planning time; 15 minutes writing time. Test of Written Language-33 (spontaneous writing section): Pictorial prompts; students produced one piece of writing in response to one picture prompt.15 minutes writing time. NarrativeExperimental story: 3 x 7pt ratings: organization; development of plot/characters/setting; narrative creativity.2 x raters. IRR for each scale: .77; .81; .84. Average of two scores used.Test of Written Language: scored for quality of plot; character development; general composition.2 x raters, IRR=.90Olinghouse, Santangelo & Wilson2012Olinghouse, N. G., Santangelo, T., & Wilson, J. (2012). Examining the validity of single-occasion, single-genre, holistically scored writing assessments. Measuring writing: Recent insights into theory, methodology and practice. Studies in Writing, 27, 55-82. USA2 x primary school (1 x suburban, predominantly middle class; 1 x urban magnet school, predominantly low SES); single geographical area (northeast US, but distinct districts), 6 x classrooms; state; urban + suburban105 x grade 5 (assumed age 10-11)Each student produced three pieces of writing in three genres (one narrative, one persuasive, one informative), with topic controlled for and order of elicitation counterbalanced. 15 minutes time limitNarrative; Persuasive; InformativeIndependently scored by two raters. Final score is average of the two Olinghouse & Wilson 2013Olinghouse, N. G., & Wilson, J. (2013). The relationship between vocabulary and writing quality in three genres. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26, 45-65. USA2 x primary school (1 x suburban, predominantly middle class; 1 x urban magnet school, predominantly low SES); single geographical area (northeast US, but distinct districts), 6 x classrooms; state; urban + suburbanGrade 5 (assumed age 10-11)Handwritten; administered by researchers; pictorial prompts; each student produced three pieces of writing in three genres (one narrative, one persuasive, one informative), with topic controlled for and order of elicitation counterbalanced.15 mins combined planning and writing time.Narrative; Persuasive;Informative.3 x 18pt holistic scales modified from the National Assessment for Education Progress 2011 Writing Framework [National Assessment Governing Board (2010)] and tailored to each genre; Each scale asked raters to consider four aspects: development of ideas; organization; sentences + word choice + voice; genre features.Rated by two trained scorers. IRR: .70; .87; .81.Pellegrini, Galda & Rubin1985Pellegrini, A. D., Galda, L., & Rubin, D. L. (1984). The development of oral and written language in two genres. Child Development, 55(4), 1549-1555. USA1 x predominantly middle-class school in a suburb of Atlanta.21 x 1st grade (mean age 7;0)27 x 3rd grade (mean age 9;0)23 x 5th grade (mean age 10;9)Each group from a single class. Children matched for reading level.Each participant produces a series of texts, varying for channel (oral vs. written) and genre (persuasive vs. narrative). All based on two picture prompts (related to circus). Participants randomly assignment to one of six random orders of task presentation. 1st grade participants dictate, rather than write.Persuasive; NarrativeNAPeltz1973Peltz, F. K. (1973). The effect upon comprehension of repatterning based on students' writing patterns. Reading research quarterly, 9(4), 603-621. USAEnglish class at a high school in a large, integrated urban school serving approximately 4,000 students in Queens, New York34 x grade 10All students write 4 essay questions ‘within the content area of social studies’, 250 words each, as part of standard English lessonsCompared with a published social science textEssaysNAPercival1966Percival, E. (1966). The dimensions of ability in English composition. Educational Review, 18(3), 205-212. UK204 x 11+ exam test-takersTexts written for 11+ examNot specifiedNot specifiedPotter1967Potter, R. R. (1967). Sentence structure and prose quality: an exploratory study. Research in the Teaching of English, 1(1), 17-28. US5 schools in a wide geographical area100 x grade 10 (15-16). 20 best/worst papers used in analysis.Texts elicited on a given topic ExpositoryGraded 'Good', 'Average', 'Poor' by four experienced English teachers 'of different philosophies and backgrounds'Prater1985Prater, D. L. (1985). The effect of modes of discourse, sex of writer, and attitude toward task on writing performance in grade 10. Educational and Psychological Research, 5, 241-259. USA60 x grade 101 schoolOver the course of one month, each student wrote one text in three genres (explanatory, expressive, persuasive). 50 minutes per session.Expressive; Explanatory; Persuasive4 point holistic scalePrater & Mayo1984Prater, D. L., & Mayo, N. B. (1984). Cognitive developmental level and syntactic maturity. Journal of research and development in education, 17(3), 1-7. USA1 x large high school60 x grade 10Each student wrote three pieces in distinct registers (expressive, explanatory, persuasive) with randomised assignment of task orderExpressive; Explanatory; PersuasiveNAPuranik, Lombardino & Altmann2008Puranik, C. S., Lombardino, L. J., & Altmann, L. J. P. (2008). Assessing the microstructure of written language using a retelling paradigm. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17(2), 107-120. US 7 schools in Tampa, chosen to represent children from varying socioeconomic backgrounds.30 each from grades 3-6Randomly selected from 211 samples. Equal boys/girls in each grade. Mean ages 8.7; 9.7; 10.8 11.7.Primarily English-speaking children showing no evidence of linguistic/cognitive/behavioural deficits. Ethnically diverseParticipants listen to a ‘level 3’ paragraph twice, having been told that they would have to write what they remembered afterwards. Participants given as much time as they needed to write, but all finished within 10 minutes.ExpositoryNAQualifications and Curriculum Authority1999Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (1999). Technical accuracy in writing in GCSE English: research findings. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.UK352 x GCSE candidates (assumed age 16)Handwritten288 x English GCSE exam scripts at grades A, C, F64 x English GCSE projects at grades A, C, F50% narrative; 50% non-narrativeGraded public examsRavid & Berman2010Ravid, D., & Berman, R. A. (2010). Developing noun phrase complexity at school age: A text-embedded cross-linguistic analysis. First Language, 30(1), 3-26. USAMultiple schools20 x grade 4 (age 9-10)20 x grade 7 (age 12-13)20 x grade 11 (age 16-17)20 x graduate student (age 20-40)Video prompt shown before elicitation; students allowed to make rough drafts before submitting their final version; each student produced four texts (one spoken exposition, one written exposition, one spoken narrative, one written narrative); order of elicitation was balanced for both modality and genre; texts produced in two sessions on one day; order of elicitation balanced for both genre and modalityExpository; narrativeNAReilly, Zamora & McGivern2005Reilly, J., Zamora, A., & McGivern, R. F. (2005). Acquiring perspective in English: the development of stance. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 185-208. US16 x grade 416 x junior high16 x high school16 x adultSelected from larger corpus of 20 participants at each level.View 3 minute wordless video showing social, moral and physical conflict.Produce four texts: spoken and written narratives; written expository essay and speechWritten with pencil and paper by younger children, or types on a computer (for those comfortable on the computer). Latter includes recording of keystrokes.Narrative; expositoryNARoessingh, Elgie & Kover2015Roessingh, H., Elgie, S., & Kover, P. (2015). Using lexical profiling tools to investigage children's written vocabulary in grade 3: An exploratory study. Language Assessment Quarterly, 12(1), 67-86. Canada2 x primary schools79 x Grade 3 (assumed age 8-9)Two texts removed because too short/failed to respond to topic.Each student wrote one piece using the same expository prompt.45 minutes writing time, incorporating planning times. ExpositoryHighest Level Achievement Test trait scale: 4 x 7-point rubric.Graded by 2 x researchers. Agreement = 94%. Discrepancies resolved by discussion.Rubin1982Rubin, D. L. (1982). Adapting syntax in writing to varying audiences as a function of age and social cognitive ability. Journal of child language, 9(2), 497-510. USA18 x grade 4 (mean age 9;10)18 x grade 8 (mean age 13;10)18 x grade 12 (mean age 17;10)18 x adult (mean age 31;1)Each student produced three persuasive texts, with each text varied according to the remoteness/intimacy of the target audience; counterbalanced order of presentation with random assignment to each order; instructions stressed that they the participants were writing 'to real audiences for authentic purposes', with subjects allowed to deliver their text to the requisite audience upon completion of the project should they so wishPersuasiveNARubin & Piche1979Rubin, D. L., & Piché, G. L. (1979). Development in syntactic and strategic aspects of audience adaptation skills in written persuasive communication. Research in the Teaching of English, 13(4), 293-316. USA18 x grade 418 x grade 818 x grade 1218 x adultEach participant wrote on a single topic to three different audiences, with one text per day, sessions at least three days apart.20 minute time limit.PersuasionNARushton and Young1975Rushton, J., & Young, G. (1975). Context and complexity in working class language. Language and Speech, 18(4), 366-387. UK25 x Working class students attended a college specialising in industrial training (mean age 17.1)22 x middle class students attended a public school (mean age 17.5)Each participant wrote 8 pieces (3 x "imaginative descriptive; 3 x "opinionative discursive; 2 x "technical explanatory".50 minute time limit per textImaginative descriptive;Opinionative discursive;Technical explanatoryNASadoski & Goetz1998Sadoski, M., & Goetz, E. T. (1998). Concreteness effects and syntactic modification in written composition. Scientific studies of reading, 2(4), 341-352. USA3 schools in 2 urban areas46 x grade 9 (mean 14;9)Each student wrote one text in response to the informative writing prompt of the 1988 National Assessment of Educational Progress. 40 minute time limitInformative5-point scale based on content, organization, voice, word choice, sentence fluency and conventions. Rated by 8 graduate students, IRR (based on 8 compositions): 63% exact match; 100% within one point.Sampson, G.2003Sampson, G. (2003). The structure of children's writing: moving from spoken to adult written norms. Language and computers, 48(1), 177-193. UK7 x primary schools from 4x geographical areas (Kent, Sussex, London, Yorkshire)67 x children (aged 9-12)31 x published adult textsChildren's texts randomly sampled from the Nuffield Child Language Survey (cf. Hasan & Handscombe, 1967a/b). CLS comprises a range of essays drawn in response to 19 composition titles, which were originally grouped into 5 categories, and each child selecting one composition from each category. Published texts randomly sampled from written-language component of the BNC, covering novels, industry house organs, social science textbooks, and computer magazines. Not specifiedNASampson, O.C.1964aSampson, O., C. (1964a). A linguistic study of the written compositions of ten-year old children. Language and Speech, 7(3), 176-182. UK28 x primary schools600 x age 10 (sample for grammatical structure analysis)90 x age 10 (sample for subordination index analysis)2 texts per student. Total 1200 texts for grammatical structure analysis. 180 texts for subordination index analysis.Factual; ImaginativeImpression markingSampson, O.C.1964bSampson, O., C. (1964b). Written composition at 10 years as an aspect of linguistic development: A longitudinal study continued. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 34(2), 143-150. UK28 x primary schools45 x age 10Each student wrote 1 x factual; 1 x imaginative text from choice of titles. 20 minutes allowed for each composition.Factual; ImaginativeImpression markingSpiegel & Fitzgerald(NB. Same data as Fitzgerald & Spiegal 1986)1990Spiegel, D. L., & Fitzgerald, J. (1990). Textual cohesion and coherence in children's writing revisited. Research in the Teaching of English, 24(1), 48-66. USAThree classes in one middle class school.27 x grade 322 x grade 6Each student wrote two narratives in response to distinct, counterbalanced stems (e.g. "Bob was a large hippo. He lived on the edge of a muddy river"). 27 minute time limit.Narrative6-point holistic scale based on 7 dimensions. Two raters, IRR=.86Stewart1978Stewart, M. F. (1978). Maturity from high school to university: a first look. Research in the Teaching of English, 12(1), 37-46.CanadaNormal and upper-level groups at New Brunswick school. University Education departmentSchool sample126 x grades 10-12University sample40 x 1st year 20 x 2nd year 50 x 3rd year36 x 5-6th yearRewriting task (Hunt 1970): a set passage of 32 simple sentences which students were instructed to ‘write in a better way’.ExpositoryNAStewart & Grobe1979Stewart, M. F., & Gobe, C. H. (1979). Syntactic Maturity, Mechanics of Writing, and Teachers' Quality Ratings. Research in the Teaching of English, 13(3), 207-215.Canada85 x grade 580 x grade 867 x grade 11Sample randomly selected from 1978 New Brunswick Writing Assessment Programme, which involved 10% cross-province sample of students (N=2,410)Separate expository tasks written by each year groupExpository4-point holistic scale. Each text rated independently by two raters trained by ETS. Score must be within one point. IRR>.90Sun & Nippold2012Sun, L., & Nippold, M. A. (2012). Narrative Writing in Children and Adolescents: Examining the Literate Lexicon. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 43(1), 2-13.USA3 schools (1 x elementary school, 1 x middle school, 1 x high school)40 x grade 5 (10;5-11;8)40 x grade 8 (13;4-14;10)40 x grade 11 (16;8-17;10)Students write narrative essay based on instructions and detailed outline20 minute time limitNarrativeNASun, Zhang & Scardamalia2010Sun, Y., Zhang, J., & Scardamalia, M. (2010). Knowledge building and vocabulary growth over two years, Grades 3 and 4. Instructional Science, 38, 147-171.Canada1 x class from single school attached to the University of TorontoLongitudinal (2 year)22 x 3rd grade at beginning of studyAll texts took the form of notes produced via the Knowledge Forum computer program and as part of a "knowledge building" approach, with notes grouped into half-termly batches. For the latter, each inquiry integrated whole-class discussions,individual and small-group work, and online discourse in Knowledge Forum. The studentswere encouraged to take high-level responsibility for collective, sustained inquiry processes. Instead of having the teacher design the inquiry tasks, processes, and timelines, thestudents took on these responsibilities as a community: to elaborate what they needed toknow and identify emergent specific goals, to set forth their theories, to search for usefulresources, to design experiments and collect data, and to review their progresses and focussubsequent inquiries. Knowledge Forum provided the public space in which their work wasrecorded, in views corresponding to their focal goals. By writing notes in these views,students shared their problems, ideas, data, and resources, and participated in extendeddialoguesExplorative; expositoryNAThomas1972Thomas, V. (1972). The basic writing vocabulary of elementary school children. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 18(4), 243-248.CanadaUnknown number of schools and classes; schools selected to be representative of elementary schools within each of the 35 (out of 38) elementary school districts eligible for participationGrades 1-6. Numbers unspecified.1287 texts. Each student submitted ≤2 written compositions without restriction on form and content of writing, with final sample attained by selecting every 20th composition from 25,000 distinct compositions drawn from large sample of schools within Alberta elementary school system and further filtered to ensure they met the "necessary" requirements (e.g. overall word frequency counts)Not specifiedNAThompson, Nemanich & Bala1967Thompson, N. C., Nemanich, D. D., & Bala, A. S. (1967). The Nebraska study of the syntax of children's writing, 1966-67. Volume III. Nebraska: The University of Nebraska.USASchools in Nebraska, selected to represent similar SES across groups. 90 x grade 3 (7-8)90 x grade 6 (10-11)For each grade, 3 groups of 30 students each: one follows traditional programme; one partly follows intervention syllabus; one intensively follows intervention syllabusStory written after watching a film. Each student writes one composition in fall and one in spring. 40 minute time limit.StoryNAUccelli, Dobbs & Scott2013Uccelli, 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.USA51 x high school seniors (mean age 18;4)Handwritten51 x texts produced as part of regular schoolwork. SAT-style prompt chosen by school personnel.Timed: 25 minutes. Persuasive essayHolistic ratings: sum of scores from two raters. 89.5% exact or adjacent agreement between raters.Vanderberg & Swanson2007Vanderberg, R., & Swanson, H. L. (2007). Which components of working memory are important in the writing process? Reading and Writing, 20(721-752).USA1 middle class school in Sourthern California160 x grade 10 (mean age 15.21)Each student was asked to produce four written text with the first using the story subsection of TOWL-2 (including picture prompt), the second using a bespoke experimental prompt, and the third and fourth comprising revisions of the first two texts. TOWL-2 text and its revision elicited on days one and two, the experimental prompt and its revision elicited on days three and four.Narrative; literary response5pt holistic scale for TOWL-2 text; bespoke scale for experimental textVeal1974Veal, L. R. (1974). Syntactic measures and rated quality in the writing of young children. Studies in Language Education, Report No. 8. Athens, Georgia: Department of Language Education, The University of GeorgiaUSAOne school27 x grade 227 x grade 427 x grade 6Each student produces 8 texts. Analysis is based on averages across these textsNot specifiedAll papers rated by three rates and an average take. Scores for each student is average of 8 papers.Verhoeven, Aparici, Cahana-Amitay, van Hell, Kriz & Viguié -Simon2002Verhoeven, L., Aparici, M., Cahana-Amitay, D., van Hell, J. G., Kriz, S., & Viguié-Simon, A. (2002). Clause packaging in writing and speech: A cross-linguistic developmental analysis. Written Language and Literacy, 5(2), 135-161.USA80 x grade 480 x adultEideo prompt shown before elicitation; students allowed to make rough drafts before submitting their final version. Each student produced four texts (one spoken exposition, one written exposition, one spoken narrative, one written narrative); order of elicitation was balanced for both modality and genre; texts produced in two sessions on one day; order of elicitation balanced for both genre and modalityExpository; narrativeNAWagner et al 2011Wagner, R. K., Puranik, C. S., Foorman, B., Foster, E., Wilson, L. G., Tschinkel, E., & Kantor, P. T. (2011). Modeling the development of written language. Reading and Writing, 24, 203-220.USA2 x public schools in a small southeastern city. Ethnically diverse; middle and lower SES98 x 1st grade (age 6)88 x 4th grade (age 9)Handwritten.Unspecified settingWritten prompt. Topic ‘choosing a pet for the classroom’. ‘What would that animal be? Explain why you would like to have that animal for a classroom pet’. Students encouraged to write continuously without stopping. 10 mins writing time.Inferred: EvaluationN/AWatts1944Watts, A. F. (1944). The language and mental development of children. Oxford: G.G.Harrap.UKPrimary and Secondary schoolsNumber of participants not specified ('some hundreds'). Ages : 7-8; 8-9; 9-10; 10-11; 11-12;12-13; 13-14; 14-15Each student wrote two narrativesNarrativeN/AWhitaker, Berninger & Johnston1994Whitaker, D., Berninger, V., Johnston, J., & Swanson, H. L. (1994). Intraindividual differences in levels of language in intermediate grade writers: Implications for the translating process. Learning and Individual Differences, 6(1), 107-130.USA16 x grade 4 (mean 9;11)16 x grade 5 (mean 10;11)16 x grade 6 (mean 11;10)Each student was asked to plan their story, with half performing this planning in a self-directed condition and half in a guided condition; each student then wrote a letter; finally, each student was instructed to review/revise their letter, with half performing this reviewing/revising in a self-directed condition and the other half in a guided condition.5 mins planning time; 5 mins writing time; 7 mins reviewing/revising timeExpository letter5-point holistic maturity scaleYates, Berninger & Abbott1995Yates, C., Berninger, V., & Abbott, R. (1995). Specific writing disabilities in intellectually gifted children. Talents and Gifts, 18(2), 131-155.US5 urban and suburban schools. Ethnically diverse120 students.20 at each of grades 1-6.In each grade, 10 x ‘gifted’ (based on verbal IQ); 10 x ‘average’Composition elicited amongst battery of other tests.1 x narrative task (‘One days…had the (best/worst) day at school); 1 x expository task (‘I like (person, place, or thing)…because…’). Participants given 5 minutes to write.Narrative; ExpositoryNAYoung1985Young, G. (1985). The development of logic and focus in children's writing. Language and Speech, 28(2), 115-127.UK2 x inner city schools in northern industrial town."children of white manual workers"47 x 10-year oldsEach student wrote 6 texts in three styles/registers (expressive; persuasive; explanatory) under ""normal classroom conditions"Expressive; persuasive; explanatoryNAZeman1969Zeman, S. S. (1969). Reading comprehension and writing of second and third graders. The Reading Teacher, 23(2), 144-150.USA7 classes from schools in Allentown, Pennsylvania190 x grade 2220 x grade 3Students wrote an ending to an unfinished storyStoryN/A ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download