 writing scores could be explained by a lack
of emphasis on this kind of writing in secondary school. Studies of more
complex writing tasks demanded by the secondary school system might lead
to fewer problems. However, the very poor level of the
participants' performance on English exams suggests that this is
unlikely to be the case (Dockrell, Lindsay, Palikara, et al., 2007).
Although the data suggest widespread failure with writing tasks in
relation to peers, the importance of examining writing profiles and
predictors of writing performance across genres remains an important
avenue of further research.
The current study highlights the importance of phonological and
nonphonological dimensions of oral language as important factors in
supporting (or limiting) the production of written text. In addition, we
identified writing fluency as a particular problem for these students.
Further automating the processes involved in transcription is an
important consideration; a recent UK-based intervention to improve the
spelling of subject-specific words by students with dyslexia (Sterling,
Ertubey, Brownfield, O'Reilly, & Noyce, 2004) seems a step in
the right direction. Other schemes that have been used successfully with
other children-those that do not advocate lower-level writing
instruction at the expense of higher-level writing skills--could also be
potentially adapted for use with students with SLI (see Berninger et
al., 1997). We have shown that the writing produced by these students is
directly related to literacy level; schemes to improve literacy levels,
particularly spelling, should also have a long-term benefit provided
they are embedded within interventions that support the coordination of
text production and meaning generation.
In addition, there is a need to consider the vocabulary that these
students possess to support idea generation. Previously we have argued
that the development of semantic skills may be seen as a compensatory
mechanism to support the writing instruction for students with SLI
(Dockrell, Lindsay, Connelly, et al., 2007). The data presented here
confirm that this is a continuing issue as children become older.
Students with poor vocabulary skills will need explicit support with
vocabulary to generate ideas; this dimension is particularly important
because we identified no changes in the participants' relative
vocabulary across their education (Dockrell, Lindsay, Connelly, et al.,
Finally, an important consideration for students who have
experienced such a history of failure to write will be motivation.
Interventions will need to be developed which both address the major
limitations with basic skills and motivate the young people within an
empowering educational environment. This remains a major challenge.
Beitchman, J. H., Wilson, B., Brownlie, E. B., Waiters, H., &
Lancee, W. (1996). Long-term consistency in speech/language profiles: I.
Developmental and academic outcomes. Journal of the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 804-824.
Berninger, V. (2001). Process assessment of the learner[TM]
(PAL[TM]) test battery for reading and writing. San Antonio, TX: The
Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Whitaker, D., Sylvester, L., &
Nolen, S. (1995). Integrating low-level skills and high-level skills in
treatment protocol for writing disabilities. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 18, 293-309.
Berninger, V. W., Mizokawa, D., & Bragg, R. (1991).
Theory-based diagnosis and remediation of writing disabilities. Journal
of School Psychology, 29, 57-79.
Berninger, V. W, Vaughn, K., Abbott, R., Abbott, S., Rogan, L.,
Brooks, A., et al. (1997). Treatment of handwriting problems in
beginning writers: Transfer from handwriting to composition. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 89, 652-666.
Bishop, D. V. M. (1983). Test of reception of grammar. Manchester,
England: Author and University of Manchester Age and Cognitive
Performance Research Centre.
Bishop, D. V. M., & Clarkson, B. (2003). Written language as a
window into residual language deficits: a study of children with
persistent and residual speech and l