Cognition and writing development in early adolescent English learners.

Abstract

Proficient writing performance in English requires multiple cognitive skills, which can be particularly challenging for English Learners (ELs). However, compared with reading and mathematics, there have been fewer scientific inquiries that explore the relationship between cognitive components and writing. The purpose of this study was to examine the role of three cognitive components (phonological awareness [PA], oral language development [OLD], and working memory [WM]), on writing development in Spanish-speaking EL children. To achieve this goal, 374 children in Grades 3 to 5 were administered a battery of cognitive measures in both Spanish as well as English, and a narrative writing task in English. Using structural equation modeling, three important findings emerged. First, the results showed that PA in both Spanish and English positively predicted English writing performance. Second, English OLD had a positive effect on writing, but Spanish OLD was a negative predictor of writing. Third, WM in both languages had large positive effects on writing in English. Taken together, the findings from this study highlight the important roles firstand second-language PA, OLD, and WM play in upper elementary ELs' English writing. Educational Impact and Implications StatementThe present study suggests that improving foundational cognitive components (i.e., phonological awareness, oral language, and working memory) may be beneficial in promoting writing for upper elementary English Learners who are receiving English-only instruction. It also highlights the roles of these cognitive components in the first language to writing. Additionally, this study provides a cognitive map for practitioners to identify specific skills needed to improve their student's writing development via instruction.

Working memory, L2 proficiency, and task complexity: Independent and interactive effects on L2 written performance

“…The correlational data showed no significant effects of WM on the characteristics of the texts produced. The observed lack of WM effects is not consistent with most previous research reporting a connection between WM and written performance (Adams & Guillot, 2008;Baoshu & Chuanbi, 2015;Bergsleithner, 2010;Kormos & Sáfár, 2008;Mavrou, 2020;Michel et al, 2019;Mujtaba et al, 2021;Peng et al, 2022;Révész et al, 2017;Vasylets & Marín, 2021;Zabihi, 2018;Zalbidea, 2017), but it is a finding in line with the small number of previous studies that found insignificant or null WM effects (Cho, 2018;Kim et al, 2021;Lu, 2015). One possible explanation could be related to the WM instrument used in the research design.…”

Working memory and second language writing: A systematic review

“…In terms of research focus, 12 out of the 16 studies are correlational studies examining the associations between working memory and overall writing performance or aspects of writing performance such as spelling (Arfé & Danzak 2020), pauses (Vallejos, 2020), and CAF (complexity, accuracy, and fluency; e.g., The role of working memory in second language writing: A systematic review The role of working memory in second language writing: A systematic review Vasylet & Marín, 2020). These studies did not involve variable manipulation, and in some studies working memory was examined as a predictor of writing performance together with other predictors such as previous L2 knowledge (Lu, 2010), oral language (Peng et al, 2022), or anxiety (Zabihi, 2018). Among the 12 correlational studies, Kormos and Sáfár (2008) and Vasylet and Marín (2020) examined whether the role of working memory was moderated by learners' L2 proficiency; Leong et al (2019) investigated whether the effects of working memory varied as a function of genre.…”

“…First, considerable sampling heterogeneity is evident in the studies in this data set and is likely a cause for failure to obtain hypothesized results. The ESL learners in Michel et al (2019) were from two grade levels and two elementary schools, the EFL learners in Zabihi (2018) were from three universities, and the English language learners in Peng et al (2022) were from three grade levels and three large school districts. Second, global measures of writing are likely not sensitive enough to detect working memory effects.…”

“…With respect to reporting practices, all studies reported descriptive statistics such as means and standard deviations or correlation coefficients, six studies did not report checking assumptions for inferential statistical analyses, four studies failed to report any reliability indices, six reported reliability indices for certain but not all tests, and no study performed a power analysis. Furthermore, two studies reported Cohen's d as effect sizes, and one study (Peng et al, 2022) interpreted the magnitudes of regression coefficients, which is unusual in L2 research where sizes or weights of regression coefficients and factor loadings are mostly ignored.…”

The Language Demands of Analytical Reading and Writing at School

“…Psychological models of writing delineate the cognitive factors involved in writing and, in so doing, acknowledge the essential role played by language proficiencies, yet so far only limited research examines the lexical, syntactic, and discourse skills that support analytical writing throughout adolescence (Alamargot & Fayol, 2009; Kim & Schatschneider, 2017; Peng et al, 2021). Analogous to text comprehension (RAND Reading Study Group, 2002), the generation and organization of ideas in writing involves a multiplicity of writer-level, task-level, and text-level factors.…”