An Analysis of First-Grade Writing Profiles and Their Relationship to Compositional Quality

Abstract

To help all students meet the writing expectations of the Common Core State Standards, researchers need a deeper understanding of the characteristics of struggling writers. The purpose of this study was to explore the writing profiles of students including those who have or are at risk for writing disabilities. First-grade students ( N = 391) were assessed at the end of the school year using three writing assessments (spelling, sentence writing fluency, writing achievement). The researchers used latent profile analysis to identify students as fitting into one of five profiles (At Risk, Low Fluency, Low Writing, Average, and Above Average). Students also wrote narrative and descriptive texts that were scored multiple ways. The researchers used confirmatory factor analysis to identify four common factors: quality/length, spelling, mechanics, and syntax. Students in the At Risk profile wrote narratives and descriptions that scored lower on all aspects of writing when compared to students in the Average and Above Average profiles. These findings provide further evidence of the distinct difference among writers as early as first grade, and they offer insight into the characteristics of at-risk writers. The implications of these findings for instruction and assessment and directions for future research are described.

The type of writing instruction and practice matters: The direct and indirect effects of writing instruction and student practice on reading achievement.

“…The observational data with this sample of teachers have been described in greater detail in a previous publication on the nature of first-grade writing instruction (Coker et al, 2016). Relationships among spring writing assessments with this sample of students have also been reported (Coker, Ritchey, Uribe-Zarain, & Jennings, 2017). However, in this study we present a new analysis of fall student assessments and spring reading outcomes that have not been published elsewhere.…”

Expanding the Direct and Indirect Effects Model of Writing (DIEW): Reading–writing relations, and dynamic relations as a function of measurement/dimensions of written composition.

“…Written composition has been evaluated in multiple ways (e.g., Kim et al, 2017; Swartz et al, 1999), including writing quality, writing productivity, correctness in writing, spelling and conventions, vocabulary, and syntactic complexity. Studies found that these different dimensions of written composition are related but dissociable (Coker et al, 2018; Kim et al, 2014; Kim, Al Otaiba et al, 2015; Puranik et al, 2008; Wagner et al, 2011). Writing quality is the most widely evaluated dimension of written composition, is arguably the most important dimension, and typically includes coherence and quality of ideas, and use of language (vocabulary and sentence structure; e.g., Coker et al, 2018; Graham et al, 2002; Hooper et al, 2002; Kim et al, 2015; Olinghouse, 2008).…”

“…Studies found that these different dimensions of written composition are related but dissociable (Coker et al, 2018; Kim et al, 2014; Kim, Al Otaiba et al, 2015; Puranik et al, 2008; Wagner et al, 2011). Writing quality is the most widely evaluated dimension of written composition, is arguably the most important dimension, and typically includes coherence and quality of ideas, and use of language (vocabulary and sentence structure; e.g., Coker et al, 2018; Graham et al, 2002; Hooper et al, 2002; Kim et al, 2015; Olinghouse, 2008). Another widely examined dimension is writing productivity , the amount of writing such as number of words and sentences (e.g., Abbott & Berninger, 1993; Berman & Verhoeven, 2002; Kim et al, 2011, 2014; Mackie & Dockrell, 2004; Olinghouse & Graham, 2009; Scott & Windsor, 2000).…”

Critical Issues in the Understanding of Young Elementary School Students at Risk for Problems in Written Expression: Introduction to the Special Series

“…Their results provide support for a developmental model of writing fluency that is linked to the component skills described in the not-so-simple view of writing. Next, Coker, Ritchey, Uribe-Zarain, and Jennings (2017) identified five profiles of first-grade writers, using latent profile analysis. They found that students in the at-risk profile wrote narratives and descriptions that scored lower on four linguistic measures as compared with students in the average and above-average profiles, suggesting that at-risk students can be identified as early as first grade.…”

“…However, only one cognitive measure (orthographic choice) was a significant predictor at all three grade levels. Both of these papers (Coker et al, 2017; Costa et al, 2017) offer productive approaches and yet highlight the complexity of identifying struggling writers early in their schooling. McMaster, Kunkel, Shin, Jung, and Lembke (2017) conducted a rigorous best evidence synthesis on interventions for struggling writers in the primary grades.…”