Abstract
Two instructional experiments used randomized, controlled designs to evaluate the effectiveness of writing instruction for students with carefully diagnosed dyslexia, which is both an oral reading and writing disorder, characterized by impaired word decoding, reading, and spelling. In Study 1 (4th to 6th grade sample and 7th to 9th grade sample), students were randomly assigned to orthographic or morphological spelling treatment but all students were taught strategies for planning, writing, and reviewing/revising narrative and expository texts. Both treatments resulted in improvement on three measures of spelling and one measure of composition. Morphological treatment resulted in better improvement in spelling pseudowords, whereas orthographic treatment resulted in better improvement in rate of reading pseudowords. In Study 2 (4th to 6th grade sample), students were randomly assigned to explicit language treatment (phonological working memory + phonological-orthographic spelling + science report writing training) or nonverbal problem solving treatment (virtual reality-based computer simulation, drawing maps, and building clay models). Both treatments used science content material and resulted in significant improvement in spelling and reading pseudowords (accuracy and rate). The surprising finding was that hands-on, engaging science problem solving led to more improvement in phonological working memory than did specialized phonological instruction. Only when spelling instruction emphasized orthography or morphology (Study 1) did real word spelling improve.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alamargot, D., & Chanquoy, L. (2001). Through the models of writing. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Altemeier, L., Jones, J., Abbott, R., & Berninger, V. (2006) Executive factors in becoming writing-readers and reading-writers: Note-taking and report writing in third and fifth graders. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 161–173.
Berninger, V. (2001). Process assessment of the learner (PAL) test battery for reading and writing. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Berninger, V. (2006a). A developmental approach to learning disabilities. In I. Siegel & A. Renninger (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, Child psychology and practice (Vol. 4, pp. 420–452). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Berninger, V. (2006b). Defining and differentiating dyslexia, dysgraphia, and language learning disability within a working memory model. To appear in E. Silliman & M. Mody (Eds.), Language impairment and reading disability-interactions among brain, behavior, and experience. New York: Guilford Press.
Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Jones, J., Wolf, B., Gould, L., Anderson-Youngstrom, M., Shimada, S., & Apel, K. (2006). Early development of language by hand: Composing-, reading-, listening-, and speaking-connections, three letter writing modes, and fast mapping in spelling. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 61–92.
Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Thomson, J., & Raskind, W. (2001). Language phenotype for reading and writing disability: A family approach. Scientific Studies in Reading, 5, 59–105.
Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Thomson, J., Wagner, R., Swanson, H. L., Wijsman, E., & Raskind, W. (2006). Modeling developmental phonological core deficits within a working-memory architecture in children and adults with developmental dyslexia. Scientific Studies in Reading, 10, 165–198.
Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Whitaker, D., Sylvester, L., & Nolen, S. (1995). Integrating low-level skills and high-level skills in treatment protocols for writing disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 293–309.
Berninger, V., & Hidi, S. (2006). Mark Twain’s writers’ workshop: A nature-nurture perspective in motivating students with learning disabilities to compose. In S. Hidi, & P. Boscolo (Eds.), Motivation in writing (pp. 159–179). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Berninger, V., Nagy, W., Carlisle, J., Thomson, J., Hoffer, D., Abbott, S., Abbott, R., Richards, T., & Aylward, E. (2003). Effective treatment for dyslexics in grades 4 to 6. In B. Foorman (Eds.), Preventing and Remediating Reading Difficulties: Bringing Science to Scale (pp. 382–417). Timonium, MD: York Press.
Berninger, V., Nagy, W., Richards, T., & Raskind, W. (2006). Developmental dyslexia: A developmental neurolinguistic approach. To appear in G. Rickheit and H. Strohner (Eds.) Communicative Competence of the Individual Handbook of Applied Linguistics (HAL), Berlin: de Gruyter Publishers.
Berninger, V., Nielsen, K., Abbott, R., Wijsman, E., & Raskind, W. (in press). Writing problems in developmental dyslexia: Under-recognized and under-treated. Journal of School Psychology.
Berninger, V., & Richards, T. (2002). Brain literacy for educators and psychologists. New York: Academic Press.
Berninger, V., Rutberg, J., Abbott, R., Garcia, N., Anderson-Youngstrom, M., Brooks, A., & Fulton, C. (2006). Tier 1 and Tier 2 early intervention for handwriting and composing. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 3–30.
Berninger, V., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R., Begay, K., Byrd, K., Curtin, G., Minnich, J., & Graham, S. (2002). Teaching spelling and composition alone and together: Implications for the simple view of writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 291–304.
Berninger, V., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R., Brooks, A., Abbott, S., Reed, E., Rogan, L., & Graham, S. (1998). Early intervention for spelling problems: Teaching spelling units of varying size within a multiple connections framework. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 587–605.
Berninger, V., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R., Brooks, A., Begay, K., Curtin, G., Byrd, K., & Graham, S. (2000). Language-based spelling instruction: Teaching children to make multiple connections between spoken and written words. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 117–135.
Berninger, V., & Winn, W. (2006). Implications of advancements in brain research and technology for writing development, writing instruction, and educational evolution. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 96–114). New York: Guilford Press.
Berninger, V., Yates, C., & Lester, K. (1991). Multiple orthographic codes in acquisition of reading and writing skills. Reading and Writing. An Interdisciplinary Journal, 3, 115–149.
Berninger, V., & Abbott, S. (2003). PAL Research-supported reading and writing lessons. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt/The Psychological Corporation.
Bruck, M. (1993). Component spelling skills of college students with childhood diagnoses of dyslexia. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 171–184.
Chenault, B., Thomson, J., Abbott, R., & Berninger, V. (2006). Effects of prior attention training on child dyslexics’ response to composition instruction. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 243–260.
Cornell, J. (2000). John Muir my life with nature. Nevada City, CA: Dawn Publications.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal performance. New York: Harper and Row.
Dixon, R., & Englemann, S. (2001). Spelling through morphographs. DeSoto, TX: SRA/McGraw-Hill.
Gilchrist, G. (2000). John Muir My Life of Adventures. CD recording by storyteller Garth Gilchrist. Dawn Publications.
Graham, S., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Abbott, S., & Whitaker, D. (1997). The role of mechanics in composing of elementary school students: A new methodological approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 170–182.
Graham, S., & MacArthur, C. (1988). Improving learning disabled students’ skills at revising essays produced on a word processor: Self-instructional training. Journal of Special Education, 22, 133–152.
Hidi, S., & McClaren, J. (1990). The effect of topic and theme interestingness on the production of school expositions. In H. Mandl, E. De Corte, N. Bennett, & H. Freidrich (Eds.), Learning and instruction: European research in an international context (Vol. 2.2), (pp. 295–308). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Hooper, S., Swartz, C., Wakely, M., deKruif, R., & Montgomery, J. (2002). Executive functions in elementary school children with and without problems in written expression. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 57–68.
Kellogg, R. (1994). The psychology of writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lefly, D., & Pennington, B. (1991). Spelling errors and reading fluency in dyslexics. Annals of Dyslexia, 41, 143–162.
Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S., & Shaywitz, B. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 1–14.
MacArthur, C. (1999). Overcoming barriers to writing: Computer support for basic writing skills. Reading and writing quarterly, 15, 169–192.
MacArthur, C., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning disabled students’ composing with three methods: Handwriting, dictation, and word processing. Journal of Special Education, 21, 2–42.
MacArthur, C., Schwartz, C., & Graham, S. (1991). Effects of a reciprocal peer revision strategy in special education classrooms. Learning Disability Research and Practice, 6, 201–210.
Nagy, W., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Vaughan, K., & Vermeulin, K. (2003). Relationship of morphology and other language skills to literacy skills in at-risk second graders and at-risk fourth grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 730–742.
Nagy, W., Berninger, V., & Abbott, R. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 134–147.
Psychological Corporation. (2001). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, 2nd edition. WIAT II. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Raskind, W., Igo, R., Chapman, N., Berninger, V., Thomson, J., Matsushita, M., Brkanac, Z., Holzman, T., Brown, M., & Wijsman, E. (2005). A genome scan in multigenerational families with dyslexia: Identification of a novel locus on chromosome 2q that contributes to phonological decoding efficiency. Molecular Psychiatry, 10, 699–711.
Richards, T., Aylward, E., Berninger, V., Field, K., Parsons, A., Richards, A., & Nagy, W. (2006a). Individual fMRI activation in orthographic mapping and morpheme mapping after orthographic or morphological spelling treatment in child dyslexics. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 19, 56–86.
Richards, T., Aylward E., Raskind, W., Abbott, R., Field,. K., Parsons, A., Richards, A., Nagy, W., Eckert, M., Leonard, C., & Berninger, V. (2006b). Converging evidence for triple word form theory in children with dyslexia. Developmental Neuropsychology, 30, 547–589.
Richards, T., Berninger, V., Nagy, W., Parsons, A., Field, K., & Richards, A. (2005). Brain activation during language task contrasts in children with and without dyslexia: Inferring mapping processes and assessing response to spelling instruction. Educational and Child Psychology, 22, 62–80.
Richards, T., Berninger, V., Winn W., Stock, S., Wagner, R., Muse, A., & Maravilla, K. (in press). fMRI activation in children with dyslexia during pseudoword aural repeat and visual decode. Neuropsychology.
Templeton, S., & Bear, D. (1992). Development of orthographic knowledge and the foundations of literacy: A memorial Feltschrift for Edmund Henderson. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Thomson, J., Chennault, B., Abbott, R., Raskind, W., Richards, T., Aylward, E., & Berninger, V. (senior, corresponding author) (2005). Converging evidence for attentional influences on the orthographic word form in child dyslexics. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 18, 93–126.
The Psychological Corporation. (2003). Wechsler Individual Intelligence Test for Children, 4th edition. WISC IV. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Test of Word Reading Efficiency. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Troia, G., & Graham, S. (2002). The effectiveness of a highly explicit, teacher-directed strategy instruction routine: Changing the writing performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 290–305.
Troia, G., Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1999). Teaching students with learning disabilities to mindfully plan when writing. Exceptional Children, 65, 235–252.
Troia, G. A., & Maddox, M. E. (2004). Writing instruction in middle schools: Special and general education teachers share their views and voice their concerns. Exceptionality, 12, 19–37.
Venezky, R. (1970). The structure of English orthography. The Hague: Mouton.
Venezky, R. (1999). The American way of spelling. New York: Guilford.
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). The Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Ward, G., Duncan, D., & Burns, K. (2001). Mark Twain. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Waterworth, J., & Waterworth, E. (2003). Being and time: Judged presence and duration as function of media form. Presence, 12, 495–511.
Wijsman, E., Peterson, D., Leutennegger, A., Thomson, J., Goddard, K., Hsu, L., Berninger, V., & Raskind, W. (2000). Segregation analysis of phenotypic components of learning disabilities I. Nonword memory and digit span. American Journal of Human Genetics, 67, 631–646.
Wilkinson, G. (1993). Wide Range Achievement Tests—Third Edition. Wilmington, DE: Wide Range, Inc.
Winn, W. (2003). Technology supported learning environments. Technology, Instruction, Cognition, and Learning, 1, 147–151.
Winn, W., Berninger V., Richards, T., Aylward, E., Stock, P., Lee, Y., & Lovitt, D. (2006). Effects of nonverbal problem solving treatment on skills for externalizing visual representation in upper elementary grade students with and without dyslexia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34, 395–412.
Winn, W., Stahr, F., Sarason, C., Fruland, R., Oppenheimer, P., & Lee, Y-L. (2006). Learning oceanography from a computer simulation compared with direct experience at sea. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 25–42.
Wolf, M., Morris, R., & Bally, H. (1986). Automaticity, retrieval processes and reading: A longitudinal study of average and impaired readers. Child Development, 57, 988–1000.
Wong, B. Y. L. (1994). Instructional parameters promoting transfer of learned strategies in students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 110–120.
Wong, B. Y. L. (2000). Writing strategies for instruction for expository essays for adolescents with and without learning disabilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 20, 29–44.
Wong, B., & Berninger, V. (2004). Cognitive processes of teachers implementing composition research elementary, middle, and high school classrooms. In B. Shulman, K. Apel, B. Ehren, E. Silliman, & A. Stone (Eds.), Handbook of Language and Literacy Development and Disorders (pp. 600–624). New York: Guilford.
Wong, B. Y. L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., & Kuperis, S. (1996). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities and low achievers to plan, write, and revise opinion essays. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 197–212.
Wong, B. Y. L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., & Kuperis, S. (1997). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities and low achievers to plan, write, and revise compare- and contrast- essays. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 12, 2–15.
Wong, B. Y. L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., Kuperis, S., & Corden, M. (1994). Teaching problem learners revision skills and sensitivity to audience through two instructional modes: Student-teacher versus student-student interactive dialogues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9, 78–90.
Wong, B. Y. L., Wong, R., Darlington, D., & Jones, W. (1991). Interactive teaching: An effective way to teach revision skills to adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6, 117–127.
Woodcock, R. (1987). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests–Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Woodcock, R., McGrew, K., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Preparation of this chapter was supported by Grant Nos. HD25858 and P50 33812 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD).
In Study 1 teaching assistants included Sylvia Abbott, Marci Anderson-Youngstrom, Belle Chennault, Kate Eschen, Noelia Garcia, Sandra Hiramatsu, Lynn Junell, Julia Kim, Stephanie King, Shin-Ju (Cindy) Lin, Rebecca Metzger, Heather Murphy, Jennifer Norton, Sue Palewicz, Rebecca Pirie, and Suzanna West. Also on the assessment team were Sylvia Abbott, Belle Chenault, Kate Eschen, and Rebecca Pirie. Certified teachers Diana Hoffer and Christina Johnson implemented the composition lessons written by the first author. In Study 2, teaching assistants included Nicole Alston-Abel, Leah Altemeier, Wade Altom, Marci Anderson-Youngstrom, Annie Boyd, Nicole Garcia, Laura Gould, Marta Holsinger, Yen-Ling Lee, Shin-Ju (Cindy) Lin, Laurie McCarthy, Heather Murphy, Hema O’Shea, Michelle Proux, Kristine Tardiff, and Kari Terjeson. Janine Jones supervised the assessment team. Margaret McShane and Doug Stock served as administrative assistants.
Appendix A: Sample composition lessons for Study 1
Appendix A: Sample composition lessons for Study 1
Lesson 5:Planning, Writing, Reviewing, and Revising PWRR Strategy (Berninger et al., 1995) and Narrative Writing: “If I Ran the School or Class Clown” First review of progress on Mark Twain in Star Wars/Peace 3001 Story
TEACHER MODELING
Say “I’m going to teach you the Plan, Write, Review/Revise Strategy (PWRR) for composing by modeling it for you. First, I am going to model planning for you. I will think aloud about what I am going to write about in my story on daydreaming. Listen as I think aloud. I will write about when I daydream. I will write about why I daydream. I will write about what I daydream about. Now it is your turn to plan. When do you daydream? (allow time for children to think and share) Why do you daydream? (allow time for children to think and share) What do you daydream about? (allow time for children to think and share).”
Say, “Now I am going to model writing my story about daydreaming. Watch me as I write this on the board. (Write: I daydream when I have to sit still for a long while. I daydream becaus (sic) I get board (sic). I daydream about what I would be doing if I were not here.)
Say, “Now I am going to model reviewing and revising. First I will read my story aloud. Now I will revise it to make it better. I am thinking of sentences that I can add to it to make it better. I think I will give two examples for the last sentence. Watch while I add those sentences to what I have already written on the board.” (Write: For example, I would rather be sailing. Or, I would prefer to see a movie.) Now I am going to revise a sentence to make it better. I think that the first one is too wordy. I am going to strike out have. The sentence will still make sense. Now I am going to think about my word choice. I think I am going to substitute time for while in the first sentence. Now I will check my spelling. Oops I misspelled because. I forgot the e on the end. Oops I misspelled board. The spelling I used is for another meaning. I am changing it to bored. Now I will check my capitalization and punctuation. Oops I forgot to put a period at the end of the last sentence. Now it is your turn to read your story aloud and make the changes as I cue you for each kind of revising.”
INTRODUCING TOPIC, TEXT STRUCTURE, AND IDEA GENERATING IN PLANNING TO WRITE NARRATIVES (STORIES)
Say, “Please use the Plan, Write, Review, and Revise Strategy to write a story about a topic you choose. All stories need a topic—something to write about. You may choose a topic for your story—either Class Clown or If I Ran the School. The topic can also be the title.
Stories also need a specific kind of structure or organization. We call this organization narrative structure because it is like the one that good story tellers or narrators use. This structure has a plot, which is a sequence of events. Cartoons are like written stories because each picture stands for something that happened in order. The first picture took place before the second picture, which took place before the third picture. This order is a sequence. Stories have sequence too. We call the sequence of events the plot. Stories also need characters—the people that cause the events to take place. They are like the actors in a play. Stories also need a setting. The events occur in a specific place and time. Readers liked Mark Twain’s stories because they are humorous. Think how you can inject humor into your story.”
Graphic organizers for student partners to use in planning. So the first thing I want you to do is to day dream and think of the events that will take place in your story. List them in the Plot Plan. As you imagine the events, also think of the characters who will cause the events. List them in the Character Plan. Finally, think of all the settings (place and time) where the events will take place and list them in the Setting Plan.
WRITING THE FIRST DRAFT
Say, “Now write the story using the topic (title) you chose and the PLOT, CHARACTER, AND SETTING PLANS you wrote. It is important that you write for 10 minutes. Your pencil does not have an eraser, but you can make changes by crossing out and rewriting. Remember that the first draft does not have to be perfect. Concentrate on generating your ideas and filling in the details in your plans.” If any student stops writing before 10 minutes, say, “What else can you think of? Reread what you have written already and think of something else to say.”
Feedback. Teachers should score each composition on three criteria along a scale from 1 (poor) to 2 (fair) to 3 (good) to 4 (very good) to 5 (outstanding): whether sentences are complete and well structured, whether sentences are organized in a meaningful way, and whether word choice is interesting. This scoring should be done before the next lesson when students are given the scores on each criterion during the feedback at the beginning of the revision session.
REVIEWING AND REVISING for Lesson 4 Composition
Feedback. Teachers give children scores on sentence construction, sentence organization, and word choice from Lesson 4 composition. Teachers and students set realistic writing goal for improving one of these in next composition.
Teacher-led Reflective Discussion (Based on Wong et al.,1994, 1996, 1997). Teacher reads each partner’s composition aloud, hums or sighs where writing is unclear, and leads discussion of how clarity can be improved. Students and teacher suggest how each partner’s composition could be improved in terms of whether word choice is interesting, whether sentences are complete, and whether the essay is organized meaningfully (order of sentences). Children make notes in colored marker on their original draft to use when they compose later at the computer. If necessary, teacher models how to add ideas, rewrite sentences, and change words.
Computer-keyboard warm-up. Teacher dictates one of 26 random alphabet letters. Student finds and touches the letter on the laminated keyboard. Teacher records number of correct touches on probe sheet. Use this order: c, r, m, v, a, i, b, g, z, h, u, x, e, j, l, q, y, w, p, s, f, t, d, k, n, o.
Using keyboard and word processing program to enter revised draft. Teacher assists students in entering the revised draft. Teachers show them how to use relevant features of word processing program, which will have the spell-check feature turned off, for text entry. Students can refer to their notes on the first draft and make additional revision. Students also receive feedback on their revised drafts using the same criteria and teacher rating scale as for the feedback on their first drafts.
ILLUSTRATING Say, “Pictures add to good stories. With these colored markers I want you to illustrate your story. Use art to express the ideas in another way.”
Getting ready to publish. Student shows teachers what has been written so far on Mark Twain in Star Wars/Peace 3001. Teachers provide feedback and suggestions for revision and further development of the story.
Appendix B
Example word sets for each spelling strategy in Study 1
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Berninger, V.W., Winn, W.D., Stock, P. et al. Tier 3 specialized writing instruction for students with dyslexia. Read Writ 21, 95–129 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9066-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9066-x