Children's Oral Language and Their Written Composition

Groff, Patrick

doi:10.1086/461100

Cited by 13 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Granted, there are important differences in the communicative requirements for translating ideas into written versus spoken discourse (Green & Morgan, 1981;Groff, 1978). But there may be enough overlap between the two for translating to be relatively effortless.…”

Section: Allocation Of Cognitive Effortmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of topic knowledge on the allocation of processing time and cognitive effort to writing processes

1987

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conditions of low and high knowledge about the topic of a writing task were compared in terms of the time and cognitive effort allocated to writing processes. These processes were planning ideas, translating ideas into text, and reviewing ideas and text during document composition. Directed retrospection provided estimates of the time devoted to each process, and secondary task reaction times indexed the cognitive effort expended. Topic knowledge was manipulated by selecting subjects in Experiment 1 and by selecting topics in Experiment 2. The retrospection results indicated that both low-and high-knowledge writers intermixed planning, translating, and reviewing during all phases of composing. There was no evidence that low-and high-knowledge writers adopt different strategies for allocating processing time. About 50 % of writing time was devoted to translating throughout composition. From early to later phases of composing, the percentage of time devoted to planning decreased and that devoted to reviewing increased. The secondary task results showed that the degree of cognitive effort devoted to planning, translating, and reviewing depended on the task. Also, the high-knowledge writers expended less effort overall than did the low-knowledge writers; there was no difference in allocation strategy across planning, translating, and reviewing.Research on the writing process has increased markedly in recent years (Beach & Bridwell, 1984;de Beaugrande, 1980; Frederiksen & Dominic, 1981; Gregg & Steinberg, 1980;Nystrand, 1982). This interest is warranted given the importance of writing in work settings (Faigley & Miller, 1982;Odell & Goswami, 1984) and the concern raised by the ongoing National Assessment of Educational Progress that schools are not adequately preparing students in writing. Although research advances are being made, numerous basic questions remain, at best, only partially answered. One such question is how the knowledge of the writer affects the writing process. The importance of knowledge differences in other tasks, such as reading comprehension (Voss, Vesonder, & Spilich, 1980) and problem solving (Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser, 1981), suggests that this should be a key factor in writing.Writers differ in what they know about their language, audience, and topic (Applebee, 1982). The present studies examined how knowledge of the topic being written about affects the amount of processing time and cognitive effort allocated to various writing processes. Although linguistic and audience knowledge also deserve exploration, they fall beyond the scope of this initial investigation. Processing time and cognitive effort were selected because, as will be discussed below, they concern two prominent features of writing based on current theory and empirical findings.The author thanks the anonymous reviewers for the useful suggestions they provided on an earlier version of this manuscript. Requests for reprints should be addressed to Ronald T. Kellogg, Department of Psychology, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, M...

show abstract

Section: Allocation Of Cognitive Effortmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of topic knowledge on the allocation of processing time and cognitive effort to writing processes

1987

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, research conducted by Martin (1952), Winter (1957), and Stedman and Adams (1972) casts some doubt on a cause-and-effect relationship. Groff (1978) and Bougere (1969) came to similar conclusions when reviewing the literature relating oral language and written language. In a recent review of the literature, Hammill and McNutt (1981) concluded that for school-aged students only a weak relationship exists between receptive oral language and reading.…”

Section: R Ecently T H E R E Has Been a Strong Interest Inmentioning

confidence: 55%

“…Moderate to strong relationships also occurred between expressive and receptive oral language performance and reading comprehension. Groff (1978) and Bougere (1969) came to similar conclusions when reviewing the literature relating oral language and written language.Thus, many questions persist regarding the relationship between proficiency in oral language and later performance in reading. For many years educators have assumed that interrelationships exist between these two.…”

mentioning

confidence: 55%

Oral Language and Reading

Edmiaston

1984

Remedial and Special Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study reported here investigated the relationship between oral language and reading comprehension of 77 third grade students. Results indicated moderate to strong statistically significant relationships between specific linguistic components of oral language and reading comprehension. Moderate to strong relationships also occurred between expressive and receptive oral language performance and reading comprehension. In general, the findings of this study supported the existence of a functional relationship between oral language and reading. R ECENTLY T H E R E HAS been a strong interest inthe relationship between oral language and reading. For many years educators have assumed that interrelationships exist between these two. For example, some professionals have hypothesized that proficiency in oral language underlies children's future success in reading, and researchers have provided some support for this belief (Carroll, 1966;Loban, 1963Loban, , 1966Loban, , 1967Reid & Hresko, 1980). Certainly in the primary years the language arts curriculum constitutes the majority of the child's day. The heavy reliance on the development of oral language in many reading readiness programs further attests to the belief that oral language and reading are closely related functions.Although it seems at least superficially logical to assume that oral language and reading are related, it is not appropriate to assume that a cause-and-effect relationship exists between the two. Indeed, research conducted by Martin (1952), Winter (1957), and Stedman and Adams (1972 casts some doubt on a cause-and-effect relationship. Obviously, the nature of the relationship between oral language and reading has not been fully explained. In a recent review of the literature, Hammill and McNutt (1981) concluded that for school-aged students only a weak relationship exists between receptive oral language and reading. They also found practically no relationship between oral expressive language and reading. Groff (1978) and Bougere (1969) came to similar conclusions when reviewing the literature relating oral language and written language.Thus, many questions persist regarding the relationship between proficiency in oral language and later performance in reading. If indeed relationships do exist, their nature and extent need to be determined; clarification of these issues has direct importance for instructional practices in teaching the language arts. If oral language and reading are interactive processes, and if these processes can be clearly delineated, an integrated approach to the language arts curricula would be appropriate. If, on the other hand, oral language and reading are not functionally related, school programs should provide separate instruction for speaking, listening, and reading.Because questions concerning the relationships between the components of language arts have direct implications for instructional practice, answers are crucial. The purpose of this study is to investigate empirically the relationship between oral language and re...

show abstract

“…The critical assumption underlying these procedures is that reading, writing, and langu~ge are closely related and function in an interactive and supportive way. By increasing and varying oral language experiences, for instance, teachers have often been led to believe that their students will more likely achieve writing success (Groff, 1978). Nonetheless, language arts specialists disagree as to the precise benefits of indirect training on the development of a student's skill in written composition.…”

Section: Indirect Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During the primary grades children usually do not write what they cannot say (Groff, 1978). Research by Eldredge ( 1965), Howell (l 956), and Wilson (l 963) revealed that young children's spoken language was generally more complex than their written language.…”

Section: Oral Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

Composition Research and Practice: A Unified Approach

Graham¹

2018

Exceptional

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children's Oral Language and Their Written Composition

Cited by 13 publications

References 0 publications

Effects of topic knowledge on the allocation of processing time and cognitive effort to writing processes

Effects of topic knowledge on the allocation of processing time and cognitive effort to writing processes

Oral Language and Reading

Composition Research and Practice: A Unified Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About