It has been hypothesised that students with dyslexia struggle with writing because of a wordlevel focus that reduces attention to higher level textual features (structure, theme development). This may result from difficulties with spelling and/or from difficulties with reading. 26 Norwegian upper secondary students (M = 16.9 years) with weak decoding skills and 26 age-matched controls composed expository texts by keyboard under two conditions: normally and with letters masked to prevent them reading what they were writing. Weak decoders made more spelling errors and produced poorer quality text. Their inter key-press latencies were substantially longer pre-word, at word-end, and within-word. These findings provide some support for the word-level focus hypothesis, although we found that weak decoders were slightly less likely to engage in word-level editing. Masking did not affect differences between weak decoders and controls indicating that reduced fluency was associated with production rather than monitoring what they had produced.Running Head: Weak Decoders' Writing Processes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 IntroductionDecoding refers to the translation of letters and words on the page into mental lexical representations. Struggling with decoding is a central diagnostic characteristic of dyslexia (Lyon, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 2003), and the negative effects of decoding deficits on comprehension of multi-sentence text are relatively well established (e.g., Ransby & Swanson, 2003). Much less is known about how dyslexia in general, and weak decoding in particular, affects students' performance when asked to compose their own multi-sentence texts.Students with dyslexia typically experience difficulty with producing correctly spelled single words, and these problems tend to carry over into their written composition (Connelly, Campbell, MacLean, & Barnes, 2006; Sterling, Farmer, Riddick, Morgan, & Matthews, 1998; Sumner, Connelly, & Barnett, 2013; Tops, Callens, van Cauwenberghe, Adriaens, & Brysbaert, 2013; Wengelin, 2002). Wengelin, for example, in a sample of Swedish adults producing multi-sentence expository texts found that 7.1% of words were spelled incorrectly by writers with dyslexia compared to near zero spelling errors in students who did not have a dyslexia diagnosis.It is less clear to what extent spelling difficulties have knock-on effects for students' ability to generate higher level text features -sophisticated and syntactically-correct sentences, clear argumentative structure, idea-rich content, appropriate cohesion ties, and so forth. Mature writing is often assumed to be characterised by explicit, self-regulated thinkingand-reasoning (e.g., Bereiter, Burtis, & Scardamalia, 1988; Flower & Hayes, 1980;Hayes, 1996; but see Torrance, 2015). Several authors have argued that, by making excessive demands...

Spelling accuracy and time course was investigated in a sample of 100 Norwegian 6th grade students completing a standardized spelling-to-dictation task. Students responded by keyboard with accurate recordings of response-onset latency (RT) and inter-keypress interval (IKI). We determined effects of a number of childlevel cognitive ability factors, and of word-level factors-particularly the location within the word of a spelling challenge (e.g., letter doubling), if present. Spelling accuracy was predicted by word reading (word split) performance, non-word spelling accuracy, keyboard key-finding speed and short-term memory span. Word reading performance predicted accuracy just for words with spelling challenges. For correctly spelled words, RT was predicted by non-word spelling response time and by speed on a key-finding task, and mean IKI by non-verbal cognitive ability, word reading, non-word spelling response time, and key-finding speed. Compared to words with no challenge, mean IKI was shorter for words with an initial challenge and longer for words with a mid-word challenge. These findings suggest that spelling is not fully planned when typing commences, a hypothesis that is confirmed by the fact that IKI immediately before within word challenges were reliably longer than elsewhere within the same word. Taken together our findings imply that routine classroom spelling tests better capture student competence if they focus not only on accuracy but also on production time course.& Vibeke Rønneberg

This protocol article presents the project "DigiHand: The emergence of handwriting skills in digital classrooms." 1 The project is a longitudinal natural experiment investigating how the use of different writing tools influences students' handwriting and letter knowledge, word reading, spelling, written narrative composition and teacher-student interactions in Grades 1 and 2 (students aged 6 years in Grade 1). Participants are 33 schools (n = 585 students) representing three occurring conditions for learning writing skills in early years. Students in these conditions either (1) learn to write on a tablet while postponing handwriting, (2) learn both to handwrite and write on a tablet or (3) learn to handwrite. Effect analyses are conducted on four main domains of measures: (i) students' letter knowledge, spelling competence and word reading competence; (ii) students' handwriting fluency; (iii) students' ability to write narrative compositions; (iv) quality of teacher-student interactions. This protocol describes the background, design and pre-and outcome measures for the research project.

This study investigates the possibility that lack of fluency in spelling and/or typing disrupts writing processes in such a way as to cause damage to the substance (content and structure) of the resulting text. 101 children (mean age 11 years 10 months), writing in a relatively shallow orthography (Norwegian), composed argumentative essays using a simple text editor that provided accurate timing for each keystroke. Production fluency was assessed in terms of both within-word and word-initial interkey intervals and pause counts. We also assessed the substantive quality of completed texts. Students also performed tasks in which we recorded time to pressing keyboard keys in response to spoken letter names (a keyboard knowledge measure), response time and interkey intervals when spelling single, spoken words (spelling fluency), and interkey intervals when typing a simple sentence from memory (transcription fluency). Analysis by piecewise structural equation modelling gave clear evidence that all three of these measures predict fluency when composing full text. Students with longer mid-word interkey intervals when composing full text tended to produce texts with slightly weaker theme development. However, we found no other effects of composition fluency measures on measures of the substantive quality of the completed text. Our findings did not, therefore, provide support for the process-disruption hypothesis, at least in the context of upper-primary students writing in a shallow orthography.

To date, there is no clear evidence to support choosing handwriting over keyboarding or vice versa as the modality children should use when they first learn to write. 102 Norwegian first-grade children from classrooms that used both electronic touchscreen keyboard on a digital tablet and pencil-and-paper for writing instruction wrote narratives in both modalities three months after starting school and were assessed on several literacy-related skills. The students’ texts were then analysed for a range of text features, and were rated holistically. Data were analysed using Bayesian methods. These permitted evaluation both of evidence in favour of a difference between modalities and of evidence in favour of there being no difference. We found moderate to strong evidence in favour of no difference between modalities. We also found moderate to strong evidence against modality effects being moderated by students’ literacy ability. Findings may be specific to students who are just starting to write, but suggest that for children at this stage of development writing performance is independent of modality.

Skilled handwriting of single letters is associated not only with a neat final product but also with fluent pen-movement, characterized by a smooth pen-tip velocity profile. Our study explored fluency when writing single letters in children who were just beginning to learn to handwrite, and the extent to which this was predicted by the children’s pen-control ability and by their letter knowledge. 176 Norwegian children formed letters by copying and from dictation (i.e., in response to hearing letter sounds). Performance on these tasks was assessed in terms of the counts of velocity inversions as the children produced sub-letter features that would be produced by competent handwriters as a single, smooth (ballistic) action. We found that there was considerable variation in these measures across writers, even when producing well-formed letters. Children also copied unfamiliar symbols, completed various pen-control tasks (drawing lines, circles, garlands, and figure eights), and tasks that assessed knowledge of letter sounds and shapes. After controlling for pen-control ability, pen-movement fluency was affected by letter knowledge (specifically children’s performance on a task that required selecting graphemes on the basis of their sound). This was the case when children retrieved letter forms from dictated letter sounds, but also when directly copying letters and, unexpectedly, when copying unfamiliar symbols. These findings suggest that familiarity with a letter affects movement fluency during letter production but may also point towards a more general ability to process new letter-like symbols in children with good letter knowledge.

Educationally-oriented measures of handwriting fluency – tasks such as written alphabet recall and sentence copying – conflate graphomotor skill and various higher-level abilities. Direct measurement of pen control when forming letters requires analysis of pen-tip velocity associated with the production of sub-letter features that, in a skilled handwriter, are typically produced in a single, smooth movement. We provide a segmentation and coding scheme that identifies these features in manuscript letters and gives criteria for whether or not a feature is accurately formed. We demonstrate that, in skilled handwriters, these features are the product of smooth movements: The velocity profiles of adult writers (N = 27 performing a letter-copying task) producing straight-line features and curved features gave modal velocity-peak counts of 1 and 2 respectively. We then illustrate the utility of our segmentation and coding scheme by describing the velocity profiles of beginning writers (176 first grade students with minimal handwriting training). This sample produced the same features with less accuracy and with a substantially greater number of velocity peaks. Inaccurate features tended to be produced more slowly and less fluently.

No abstract