| Literature DB >> 23853420 |
Pui-Sze Yeung1, Connie Suk-Han Ho, David Wai-Ock Chan, Kevin Kien-Hoa Chung.
Abstract
The present study is a four-year longitudinal study examining the important predictors of writing of 340 Chinese children in elementary grades. Children's transcription skills (handwriting skills and spelling), and syntactic skills in grade 1 were significant predictors of text writing in grade 1-4 while ideation in grade 1 only contributed to text writing in grade 2. Stroke order knowledge was shown as an important handwriting skill in Chinese reflecting the characteristics of the Chinese orthography. A model of Chinese writing in early elementary grades was proposed. In the model, orthographic knowledge, morphological awareness and handwriting skills are proposed to contribute to spelling which is correlated with text writing. Handwriting skills, ideation, and syntactic skills were found to contribute to text writing. Path analysis results suggest that the longitudinal relationship between spelling and text writing is bidirectional.Entities:
Keywords: Chinese; Handwriting; Ideation; Spelling; Text writing
Year: 2013 PMID: 23853420 PMCID: PMC3695322 DOI: 10.1007/s11145-012-9411-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Read Writ ISSN: 0922-4777
Means, standard deviations and ranges for measures in the present study (N = 340)
| Variables | Mean | SD | Range | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (in months) (Time 1) | 84.93 | 4.35 | 79–116 | |
| Raven’s (Time 1) | 111.39 | 13.83 | 70–135 | |
| Pseudo-character meaning judgment (Time 1) | 10.17 | 2.98 | 3–16 | 16 |
| Homophone awareness (Time 1) | 11.08 | 2.61 | 1–15 | 15 |
| Oral sentence construction (Time 1) | 21.49 | 3.93 | 5–38 | 45 |
| Word order knowledge (Time 1) | 11.36 | 4.04 | 1–18 | 18 |
| Stroke order knowledge (Time 1) | 9.98 | 3.32 | 1–17 | 18 |
| Word spelling (Time 1) | 10.32 | 5.00 | 0–22 | 26 |
| Word spelling (Time 2) | 13.27 | 4.26 | 1–20 | 20 |
| Word spelling (Time 3) | 11.45 | 5.78 | 0–24 | 24 |
| Text writing (Time 1) | 5.75 | 3.29 | 0–15 | 15 |
| Text writing (Time 2) | 6.84 | 2.73 | 0–15 | 15 |
| Text writing (Time 3) | 8.49 | 2.87 | 0–15 | 15 |
Raven’s—Raven’s standard progressive matrices
Correlations among all variables in this study
| Age (T1) | RA (T1) | OK (T1) | HA (T1) | OSC (T1) | WO (T1) | SO (T1) | WS (T1) | WS (T2) | WS (T3) | TW (T1) | TW (T2) | TW (T3) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (T1) | – | ||||||||||||
| RA (T1) | −0.06 | – | |||||||||||
| OK (T1) | 0.09 | 0.36 | – | ||||||||||
| HA (T1) | 0.05 | 0.35 | 0.47 | – | |||||||||
| OSC (T1) | −0.01 | 0.15 | 0.17 | 0.15 | – | ||||||||
| WO (T1) | 0.03 | 0.43 | 0.49 | 0.45 | 0.26 | – | |||||||
| SO (T1) | 0.05 | 0.31 | 0.35 | 0.25 | 0.14 | 0.32 | – | ||||||
| WS (T1) | 0.08 | 0.20 | 0.31 | 0.43 | 0.06 | 0.46 | 0.30 | – | |||||
| WS (T2) | 0.15 | 0.20 | 0.32 | 0.24 | 0.07 | 0.33 | 0.21 | 0.56 | – | ||||
| WS (T3) | 0.05 | 0.21 | 0.33 | 0.34 | 0.13 | 0.40 | 0.33 | 0.65 | 0.67 | – | |||
| TW (T1) | 0.13 | 0.27 | 0.26 | 0.26 | 0.25 | 0.42 | 0.22 | 0.38 | 0.28 | 0.30 | – | ||
| TW (T2) | 0.04 | 0.24 | 0.31 | 0.25 | 0.27 | 0.40 | 0.28 | 0.32 | 0.34 | 0.41 | 0.41 | – | |
| TW (T3) | 0.15 | 0.19 | 0.29 | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.35 | 0.18 | 0.38 | 0.46 | 0.48 | 0.31 | 0.37 | – |
T1 Time 1, T2 Time 2, T3 Time 3, RA Raven’s standard progressive matrices, OK pseudo-character meaning judgment, HA homophone awareness, OSC oral sentence construction, WO word order knowledge, SO stroke order knowledge, WS word spelling, TW text writing. For all variables, N = 340, correlations of magnitude 0.12 are significant at p < 0.05
Fig. 1Model 1 of text writing in Chinese. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001
Fig. 2Model 2 of text writing in Chinese. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001