Strategies Typically Developing Writers Use for Translating Thought into the Next Sentence and Evolving Text: Implications for Assessment and Instruction

Abstract

Three new approaches to writing assessment are introduced. First, strategies for generating the very next sentence are assessed in reference to the local level as well as the evolving text level of composing in progress. Second, strategies for translating thought into written language are coded with transcription (spelling) skill—low, average, or high—held constant. Third, instead of describing composing skill in reference to a single normed score for age or grade in a standardization sample at a static time in development, translation is studied longitudinally when children are in grades 1, 3, and 5 (ages 6, 8, 10) or grades 3, 5, and 7 (ages 8, 10, 12). Applications of the results are discussed for assessment and instruction grounded in levels and generativity of written language and normal variation in typically developing writers.

Thinking aloud during idea generating and planning before written translation: Developmental changes from ages 10 to 12 in expressing and defending opinions

“…It was informed by the cognitive processes of writing (Fayol et al, 2012; Hayes, 1996, 2012; Kellogg, 1994) and the over two decades of experience (1989–2016) of the research team in linguistic coding of levels of language during translation (e.g. Niedo & Berninger, 2016) and quality of composing in written narratives or essays on many outcomes variables in cross-sectional as well as longitudinal and intervention studies (e.g. Berninger, 2009).…”

“…Because participating children were assessed annually for half a day in the first two to four months of a grade, there was opportunity to collect a rich set of data across early to middle childhood and early adolescence regarding transcription modes (Alstad et al, 2015; Berninger, Abbott, Augsburger, & Garcia, 2009; Berninger et al, 2006), levels of language in language by hand (writing) and language by eye (reading)—word, sentence, and text (Abbott, Berninger, & Fayol, 2010; Berninger & Abbott, 2010; Niedo & Berninger, 2016), integrated reading-writing (Altemeier, Jones, Abbott, & Berninger, 2006; Niedo & Berninger, 2016), and cognitive processes in writing such as idea generation (Berninger, Richards, et al, 2009; Hayes & Berninger, 2010) and planning, reviewing, and revising (Berninger, Abbott, Whitaker, Sylvester, & Nolen, 1995; Berninger, Fuller, & Whitaker, 1996; Berninger, Whitaker, Feng, Swanson, & Abbott, 1996). These studies employed nationally standardized tests with norms and experimenter-designed writing tasks with research norms or researcher-designed coding schemes.…”

Computerized Instruction in Translation Strategies for Students in Upper Elementary and Middle School Grades With Persisting Learning Disabilities in Written Language

“…How cognition and language are interrelated during translation varies across the levels of language—the next sentence (Level I translation) or the text level of the evolving discourse structure of all the accumulated text so far (Level II translation) (Niedo & Berninger, 2016). Both Level I and Level II cognitive-linguistic relationships are relevant to whether the translated product is coherent at the cognitive psychological level and cohesive at the linguistic level (Halliday & Hasan, 1976).…”

“…Level I and Level II also involved cognitive-linguistic translation strategies, a concept from psycholinguistics, in that Level I required cognitive-syntax translation within sentences and Level II required cognitive-text translation across sentences. Both Level I and Level II strategies were observed in the narrative and expository writing of typically developing writers in a longitudinal sample (Niedo & Berninger, 2016). Of interest was whether the students with specific learning disabilities in transcription (handwriting and spelling) would learn and use the same Level I and Level II cognitive-linguistic translation strategies observed in typically developing writers in grades 1 to 7.…”

“…Translation of thought into language is a complex process best understood from a multidisciplinary approach, drawing on the cognitive, linguistic, and psycholinguistic traditions in writing research (Niedo & Berninger, 2016). The relevance of each of these traditions to study of translation in writing is now discussed along with applications of computer science to teaching translation strategies and clinical assessment for treatment planning and accommodations.…”