Syntactic and Vocabulary Development in the Written Language of Learning Disabled and Non-Learning Disabled Students at Four Age Levels

Abstract

Learning disabled students demonstrate serious problems in developing written language facility. Although written expression is one of seven aspects of achievement specified in the federal guidelines for identification of learning disabled students, measurement of written language development is quite complex. The search for a single, sensitive index of written language development is compounded by the synergistic nature of written language and the influence of contrived formats used in assessment. Syntax and vocabulary are frequently employed in research on written language development. Thus, the minimal terminable unit (T-unit) and the type/token ratio have been used as indices of syntactic and vocabulary development in analyzing samples of students' written language. Recently, computer technology has permitted the use of more complex measures of syntactic density and vocabulary intensity. The purpose of this study was to compare the written language development of learning disabled and non-learning disabled students at four age levels on measures of syntactic and vocabulary development. Implications for measurement and research are discussed.

Writing through retellings: an exploratory study of language-impaired and dyslexic populations

“…Studies using T-units to examine competence in syntactic complexity have shown conflicting results. While some studies have reported that children with language impairment have shorter T-units or use fewer words per T-unit in their writing compared to age-matched control subjects (e.g., Loban, 1976;, other studies have failed to demonstrate differences on these measures with language-impaired subjects (Bishop & Clarkson, 2003) and reading disabled students (Houck & Billingsley, 1989;Morris & Crump, 1982). Our findings are consistent with these latter studies.…”

The relationship between measures of vocabulary and narrative writing quality in second- and fourth-grade students

“…However, for the TOWL-3, only vocabulary diversity, less frequent vocabulary, and the number of polysyllabic words demonstrated developmental differences, and unexpectedly, second graders included more polysyllabic words than fourth graders. The differences between second and fourth graders in CTTR support Morris and Crump's (1982) cross-sectional study demonstrating an increase from students age 9 to students age 16. If vocabulary usage is an important factor in writing development, it would be expected that writers would become increasingly more competent in this area with age and schooling (see Graham & Harris, 2000 for a rationale on this expectation related to self-regulation and transcription skills).…”

“…The ratio is calculated by dividing the types by the square root of two times the tokens. Corrected type-token ratio has been previously used to assess vocabulary diversity in speech (Fletcher, 1985;Silverman & Ratner, 2002;Vermeer, 2000) and writing research (Grobe, 1981;Morris & Crump, 1982). The Concordance software program (Watt, 2000) was used to calculate the number of types and tokens.…”

Effective Instruction in Written Language

“…Skilled writers produce good compositions, as detailed in Table 2. They usually write more words than writers who are less skilled , using longer, more complex sentences (Hunt, 1965;Loban, 1976;Morris & Crump, 1982). Skilled writers use mature words and fewer high-frequency, undistinguished words (Chatterjee, 1983;Finn, 1977;Deno et al, 1982).…”

“…Many learning disabled (LD) students are deficient in written language skills, as measured both by norm-referenced tests of written language (Poplin, Gray, Larsen, Banikowski, & Mehring, 1980) and by criterion-based analyses of their writing products (Anderson, 1982;Deno, Marston, & Mirkin, 1982;Morris & Crump, 1982;Nodine, Barenbaum, & Newcomer, 1985). Although reading, math, and spelling skills are emphasized in remedial programs, written-expression has been given insufficient attention both in the curriculum and in educational literature (Roit & McKenzie, 1985).…”