Altemeier 2006

This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University]
On: 20 September 2013, At: 13:49

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
Developmental
Neuropsychology
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hdvn20
Executive Functions in
Becoming Writing Readers and
Reading Writers: Note Taking
and Report Writing in Third and
Fifth Graders
Leah Altemeier , Janine Jones , Robert D. Abbott &
Virginia W. Berninger
Published online: 08 Jun 2010.
To cite this article: Leah Altemeier , Janine Jones , Robert D. Abbott & Virginia
W. Berninger (2006) Executive Functions in Becoming Writing Readers and Reading
Writers: Note Taking and Report Writing in Third and Fifth Graders, Developmental
Neuropsychology, 29:1, 161-173, DOI: 10.1207/s15326942dn2901_8
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326942dn2901_8
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [North Dakota State University] at 13:49 20 September 2013
DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 29(1), 161–173
Copyright © 2006, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Executive Functions in Becoming

Writing Readers and Reading Writers:
Note Taking and Report Writing in Third

and Fifth Graders
Leah Altemeier, Janine Jones, Robert D. Abbott,
and Virginia W. Berninger
Department of Educational Psychology
University of Washington
Results are reported for a study of 2 separate processes of report writing—taking notes
while reading source material and composing a report from those notes—and related
individual differences in executive functions involved in integrating reading and writ-
ing during these writing activities. Third graders (n = 122) and 5th graders (n = 106;
overall, 127 girls and 114 boys) completed two reading–writing tasks—read paragraph
(mock science text)–write notes and use notes to generate written report, a reading
comprehension test, a written expression test, four tests of executive functions (inhibi-
tion, verbal fluency, planning, switching attention), and a working memorytest. For the
read–take notes task, the same combination of variables was best (explained the most
variance and each variable added unique variance) for 3rd graders and 5th graders:
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Second Edition (WIAT–II) Reading Compre-
hension, Process Assessment of the Learner Test for Reading and Writing (PAL) Copy
Task B, WIAT–II Written Expression, and Delis–Kaplan Executive Function System
(D–KEFS) Inhibition. For the use notes to write report task, the best combinations of
variables depended on grade level: For 3rd graders, WIAT–II Reading Comprehen-
sion, WIAT–II Written Expression, D–KEFS Verbal Fluency, and Tower of Hanoi; for
5th graders, WIAT–II Reading Comprehension, D–KEFS Verbal Fluency, WIAT–II
Written Expression, and PAL Alphabet Task. These results add to prior research find-
ings that executive functions contribute to the writing development of elemen-
tary-grade students and additionally support the hypothesis that executive functions
play a role in developing reading–writing connections.
Correspondence should be addressed to Virginia W. Berninger, Department of Educational Psy-

chology, University of Washington, 322 Miller, Box 353600, Seattle, WA 98195–3600. E-mail:
vwb@u.washington.edu
162 ALTEMEIER, JONES, ABBOTT, BERNINGER
Children first learn to read and to write and then learn to integrate these two written
language systems. Class and homework assignments in Grades 4 and above re-
quire students to develop executive functions (mental self-government) to inte-
grate reading and writing. For example, students have to read source material and
take written notes about the material and then convert those written notes into writ-
ten reports or other assignments. Successful completion of integrated read-
ing–writing activities requires the ability to read and write but also require more
than reading and writing. Executive functions are also needed to self-regulate the
integration process across two written language systems.

Prior research on integrating reading and writing emphasized the instructional
approaches for teaching across the curriculum (e.g., Nelson & Calfee, 1998; Fitz-
gerald & Shanahan, 2000), with a focus on rhetorical relations, procedural connec-
tions, and shared knowledge (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000). The rhetorical ap-
proach assumes that readers and writers increase awareness of communication by
being the receiver and the sender (Nelson & Calfee, 1998). The procedural ap-
proach emphasizes the functional nature of reading and writing to accomplish
goals, particularly academic tasks—for example, examining how note taking may
increase reading comprehension (Slotte & Lanka, 1999), how text is synthesized in
reports (Lenski, 1998), or how reading is used in writing revision (Beal, 1996). The
shared knowledge approach, which has received the most research attention, inves-
tigates shared cognitive processes across both reading and writing, such as phonol-
ogy, orthography, semantics, and pragmatics, and how teaching one might general-
ize to the other.
In contrast to the pedagogical approach, we adopt a neuropsychological ap-
proach to study the individual differences in the learner during the process of inte-
grating reading and writing. In keeping with Hooper et al. (1994), who emphasized
the importance of looking at both exogenous and endogenous factors contributing
to writing performance, we suggest that the exclusive focus on exogenous factors
of the pedagogical approach would benefit from expanding to consider individual
differences within the writer, some of which are based in neuropsychological pro-
cesses. In addition, we adopted a developmental framework and investigated these
individual differences at a time in development before (Grade 3) and after (Grade
5) children may have reached Stage 4 of Fitzgerald and Shanahan’s (2000) model
for the developmental relationships between reading and writing: Reading and
Writing for Learning the New: A First Step. This stage requires metacom-
prehension—that is, using reading and writing to learn new material, learning
about text structures, and knowing how to create and use meaningful, connected
text. Fitzgerald and Shanahan placed Stage 4 in Grades 4 through 8, around ages 9
to 13. Our specific focus was on taking notes while reading source material and on
using those notes to generate written reports.
The content domain, which was held constant for both the task of reading the
source material and the task of report writing, was science. However, we chose a
NOTE TAKING AND REPORT WRITING 163
topic of interest to children whether or not they were generally interested in sci-
ence—imaginary animals in an imaginary land. It was also thought that controlling
for prior background knowledge (the information was novel for all children) would
increase the likelihood that measured individual differences would reflect differ-
ences in reading–writing or writing–reading skills rather than differences related
to domain knowledge.
Research on note taking typically investigates note taking while listening to oral
language, not while reading written text. However, beginning in the upper elemen-
tary grades, students are expected to read source material and take written notes
based on the source material, and then write reports based on the written notes. Re-
search on note taking has generally focused on college students (e.g., Einstein,
Morris, & Harris, 1985; Kiewra, 1985; Peverly, this issue), but developmentally,
students engage in this process much earlier in their schooling. Thus, research is
needed on the note-taking process in the upper elementary school years when abil-
ity to read and take notes and then use those notes to generate written reports is re-
quired for scholastic success.
Individual differences in executive functions for self-regulation of the writing
process (Graham, 1997; Singer & Bashir, 1999) may affect the high-level compos-
ing processes during which written notes are transformed into written reports.
From the perspective of writing, executive functions have been defined generally
as control processes that influence one’s overall written output (Hooper, Swartz,
Wakely, de Kruif, & Montgomery, 2002). Zelazo, Carter, Reznick, and Frye
(1997) constructed a framework for understanding the sequential processes in ex-
ecutive functions, beginning with Problem Representation, followed by Plan Gen-
eration, then Execution (Intending/Rule Use), and finally Evaluation (error detec-
tion/correction). It is of interest that this framework is remarkably similar to Hayes
and Flower’s (1980) view of writing as a problem-solving process that begins with
planning, translating, and reviewing. In Hayes’s (1996) revision of this model,
reading and language generation are strong contributors to writing in addition to
problem-solving capabilities. If verbal fluency involves language generation, then
it is seen as an executive function, requiring initiation and rapid, systematic re-
trieval of words (Delis, Kaplan, & Kramer, 2001).
In the first study of writing that analyzed standard neuropsychological mea-
sures of executive functions, Hooper et al. (2002) selected tests based on Denckla’s
(1996) model of executive functioning and correlated them with performance on a
narrative writing task. In Denckla’s model, there are four classes of executive func-
tions: initiating, sustaining, inhibiting/stopping, and set shifting. Initiating behav-
iors include planning, organization, strategy use, fluency, and working memory.
Sustaining behaviors are primarily driven by the ability to maintain attention over
time. Inhibiting/stopping behaviors are regulatory in that they inhibit and/or delay
prepotent or overlearned responses to achieve a goal. Set shifting incorporates
problem-solving efficiency, cognitive flexibility, and self-monitoring and involves
the ability to shift attention and response from one stimulus to another as required
by task demands.
Hooper et al.’s (2002) sample consisted of 55 fourth- and fifth-grade students,
with 31 of those students receiving special education services for language prob-
lems and/or giftedness, and the rest receiving regular education services. Children
were given two narrative writing tasks using story starters, which were evaluated
with a 6-point scoring rubric from the National Association of Educational Prog-
ress (NAEP). Raters assigned to compositions good versus poor writer status based
on the criteria of developed ideas, sequenced story elements, and an organized and
cohesive text. Initiation tasks included the Sentence Formulation subtest from the
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals–Revised, Controlled Oral Word
Association total score, and a working memory task designed for the study. The set
shifting domain included the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, and the three- and
four-ring Tower of Hanoi subtests. The sustaining domain included the omissions
score from the Visual Search and Attention Test, and the errors from the Matching
Familiar Figures test, as well as the latency score from the Matching Familiar Fig-
ures Test. The inhibiting/stopping domain included commissions from the Visual
Search and Attention Test and the latency score from the Matching Familiar fig-
ures test. The results showed statistically significant differences between the poor
and good writer groups for the initiation and set shifting domains. For the multiple
regression analysis, the four executive function domains were entered, along with
Word Attack. Word Attack contributed significantly to predicting performance on
the writing task, but none of the executive functioning domains contributed
uniquely.
In our extension of Hooper et al.’s (2002) study, we used a somewhat different
set of measures and studied typically developing third and fifth graders in an ongo-
ing longitudinal study of writing–reading connections. The Delis–Kaplan Execu-
tive Function System (D–KEFS; Delis et al., 2001) provides a single set of norms
for comparing performance across tasks that demonstrate sensitivity in detecting
frontal-lobe dysfunction from experimental studies and clinical practice. Inhibi-
tion and verbal fluency as measured by the D–KEFS (Delis et al., 2001), planning
and rule usage measured by NEPSY Tower (Korkman, Kirk, & Kemp, 1998), and
switching attention (supervisory attention; Norman & Shallice, 1980) as measured
by the Wolf Rapid Automatic Switching (Wolf, 1986). Working memory was also
assessed because its efficiency is thought to depend, to some degree, on executive
functions that regulate it (e.g., Baddeley, 1996).
To summarize, one research aim was to assess two separate processes of report
writing—taking notes while reading source material, and composing a report from
those notes—and then to evaluate whether individual differences in executive
functions related to inhibition, verbal fluency, planning, and/or switching attention
might predict individual differences in each of the separate reading–writing pro-
cesses that are involved in report writing of typically developing third and fifth
graders The second research aim was to test the hypotheses that (a) executive func-
tions play a role in learning to integrate reading and writing skills during note tak-
ing from written source material and report writing based on those notes, and (b)
the specific executive function(s) that contribute uniquely depend on task at hand
and grade level.
METHOD
Participants
This sample had been recruited from the Seattle public schools through a letter an-
nouncing the opportunity to participate in a 5-year longitudinal research study of
reading–writing connections that was sent to all parents of children who would be
entering first grade or third grade in the fall. Parents who were interested in having
their children participate contacted the research coordinator for further informa-
tion. Overall, parents of 241 children gave informed consent and enrolled their
children in the overlapping cohort design. The attrition rate has been low and is
mainly due to families moving to another state. In this study, we report results of a
cross-sectional analysis in the 3rd year of the study when the children were in third
(n = 122) or fifth (n =106) grade. Both genders were represented about equally in
the total sample of 228 (127 girls and 114 boys).
The sample reflects diversity in ethnic background and parents’ level of educa-
tion. In the 1st year of the study, 23.4% of the first graders and 21.2% of the third
graders were Asian American, 6.3% of the first graders and 9.7% of the third grad-
ers were African American, 64.8% of the first graders and 65.5% of the third grad-
ers were European American, 1.6% of the first graders and 0.9% of the third grad-
ers were Native American, and 2.3% of the first graders and 2.7% of the third
graders were other or their parents preferred not to report ethnic background.
Overall, the sample was representative of the region in which it was conducted:
About 7% of the parents had less than a high school education, about 11% of the
parents had more than a high school education but less than a college education,
about 40% of the parents had an undergraduate education, and about 33% of the
parents had completed graduate degrees. Information on parental level of educa-
tion was missing for the rest of the group.
Measures
Integrated reading–writing outcome measures. Stimulus material for
note taking was taken from Task A of the Note-Taking subtest of the Process Assess-
ment of the Learner Test for Reading and Writing (PAL) (Berninger, 2001). How-
ever, the procedures for administration were modified so that it was a read-
ing–note-taking task rather than a listening–note-taking task. The stimulus material

was a 286-word pseudo-passage—that is, a science passage written with typical ex-
pository structure for science text, but the content was made-up (fictional animals in
a fictional country) to control for differences in background knowledge that could in-
fluence both the note-taking and report writing processes. Specifically, the text in-
cludes descriptive information about three animals and describes visual and behav-
ioral characteristics of the creatures. Children had 5 min to read the short text and
take notes on blank, lined paper; they could refer to the text while taking notes. Task
B was administered about 30 min later within the testing session. The child had 5 min
to review the notes and translate them into a written report based on the written notes
written earlier in the session. Although children would spend more time both taking
notes and writing reports in classrooms, programmatic research over the past 2 de-
cades has shown that short reading–writing activities administered individually in
the testing session are revealing individual differences in the neuropsychological
processes contributing to the reading and writing behaviors (e.g., Berninger, Dunn,
& Alper, 2004; Berninger & O’Donnell, 2004).
Set of reading achievement, writing achievement, and neuropsycho-

logical predictor measures. For reading, we used the Wechsler Individual
Achievement Test–Second Edition (WIAT-II) Reading Comprehension. For writ-
ing, we used WIAT–II Written Expression and PAL Alphabet Writing and Copy B.
For executive functioning, we used D–KEFS Inhibition from the Color–Word In-
terference test, Letter Fluency subtest from the D–KEFS Verbal Fluency Test, the
NEPSY Tower subtest, Wolf Rapid Automatized Switching Letters and Numbers,
and Woodcock–Johnson–III Numbers Reversed. These measures are described
next.
WIAT–II Reading Comprehension (Psychological Corporation, 2001) requires
students to read different passages within a grade-appropriate item set and answer
questions. Questions about the passages involve the content of the passages, such
as detecting the main idea and supporting details, making inferences, and defining
vocabulary.
WIAT–II Written Expression (Psychological Corporation, 2001) has Word Flu-
ency, Sentences, and Paragraph subtests in the grade levels studied. For Word Flu-
ency, students are given 60 sec to write as many words as possible that share a com-
mon characteristic. For the Sentences section, students are asked to combine
sentences into one meaningful sentence and to generate a sentence from cues. The
Paragraph section requires the student to write a paragraph using a story starter for-
mat that uses good spelling, punctuation, organization, and vocabulary.
PAL Copy Task B (Berninger, 2001) requires that students copy a short passage
accurately under a time limit (90 sec); both legibility and automaticity of handwrit-
ing influences the score. PAL Alphabet Writing (Berninger, 2001) measures the
student’s automaticity in writing the alphabet from memory, in order, in lowercase
manuscript letters. The score is based on the number of letters the child writes in
the first 15 sec.
The D–KEFS Inhibition score (Delis et al., 2001) is derived from performance
on the Color–Word Interference Test, based on the classic Stroop (1935) test. The
Color–Word Interference test consists of four conditions: naming color patches,
reading words, naming the color in which words are printed (instead of reading the
words), and switching between naming the color in which words are printed and
reading words that are printed within a box. The score from the third condition, In-
hibition, is based on the time students took to complete the task and was used to as-
sess children’s ability to focus on what is relevant and suppress or ignore what is ir-
relevant.
The Letter Fluency subtest of the D–KEFS (Delis et al., 2001) Verbal Fluency
test requires generation of as many words as possible that begin with a target letter
while following rules (e.g., no naming of proper names of people or places, no
numbers, and only say different words) within 60 sec. This task is thought to assess
executive control in searching through verbal memory.
The NEPSY Tower subtest (Korkman et al., 1998) is based on the Tower of Ha-
noi but is adapted for children. The Tower Test requires that children follow rules
in order to move three colored balls to a target position on three pegs in a pre-
scribed number of moves and within a time limit. It is thought to measure planning,
monitoring, self-regulation, and problem solving.
The Wolf Rapid Automatized Switching (Wolf, 1986) task requires that chil-
dren switch between naming letters and numbers. The score is based on the time it
takes the child to name five rows of 10 alternating letters and numbers.
The Numbers Reversed subtest from the Woodcock–Johnson–Revised (WJ–R;
Woodcock & Johnson, 1989) requires that children repeat a string of numbers pre-
sented orally in reverse sequence. Repeating numbers backward is thought to as-
sess working memory.
Procedure
All measures were individually administered during an annual visit of the partici-
pating children to the university clinical assessment laboratory. The coding
scheme for Tasks A and B of the PAL Note-Taking subtest in the PAL Administra-
tion and Scoring Manual was modified slightly from the scoring in the PAL man-
ual and is available upon request. On Task A, the 5-point Likert scale for the Attrib-
utes section was collapsed into scores of 1 (never or rarely evident), 2 (sometimes
evident), or 3 (often or always evident). On Task B, the first item under Translating
Skills was omitted. Because norms in the test manual could not be used for the
modified measures, z scores were calculated for each participant’s raw scores on
Task A and B, based on the mean and standard deviation of the longitudinal sam-
ple. To establish acceptable interrater reliability for these modified measures, 10
cases from each grade were coded independently by both raters (Leah Altemeier
and Janine Jones). Correlation coefficients of .99 and .98 were obtained for Task A
and Task B, respectively, reflecting good interrater reliability. All other raw scores
were converted into either standard scores with a mean of 100 and a standard devi-
ation of 15, according to the procedures in the published test manuals, or into z
scores, based on the mean and standard deviation for Grade 3 or Grade 5 depend-
ing on grade level of the child, with a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1.
Data Analysis
First, a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for both grade (third or fifth) and
sex (girl or boy) was performed on Task A or B separately. Then, correlations were
calculated to evaluate the best predictors among all the reading, writing, and
neuropsychological measures for Task A and for Task B. Finally, theory-driven
multiple regressions, which hypothesized that reading, writing, and executive
functions uniquely contributed to the note-taking and report-writing outcomes,
were performed separately for each grade level to identify the combination of vari-
ables that together accounted for the most variance and each variable in the set ac-
counted for unique variance.
RESULTS
Group Comparisons of Means for Raw Scores

Based on an ANOVA, a statistically significant Group Difference × Grade was
found for Task A (note taking), F(1, 223) = 107.49, p < .001. The total possible
score was 64. Fifth graders scored higher (M = 29.40, SD = 9.30) than third graders
(M = 16.74, SD = 9.59). A main effect for gender was also found for Task A, F(1,
223) = 10.00, p < .05, with girls scoring higher (M = 24.30, SD = 11.52) than boys
(M = 20.8, SD = 10.94).
Group differences were also found for Task B for both grade, F(1, 221), p <
.001, and for gender, F(1, 221), p < .05. The total possible score was 60. Fifth grad-
ers (M = 25.46, SD = 7.49) were higher than third graders (M =15.27 , SD =7.98 ).
Less robust but statistically significant differences were found for gender on Task
B, with girls (M = 20.92, SD = 9.22) scoring higher than boys (M = 19.10, SD =
9.27). No interaction effects were found for either Task A or Task B.
Multiple Regressions
The regression analyses were conducted separately for third and fifth graders and
tested the theory that Task A and Task B outcomes are predicted by reading, writ-
ing, and executive functions. Variables selected for multiple regressions were re-
lated to the hypotheses being tested that (a) executive functions contribute to the
integration of reading and writing skills needed for note taking from source mate-
rial and for report writing, and (b) different executive functions may contribute
uniquely, depending on the task and the developmental level of the child. For these
analyses, grade-corrected z scores, based on means and standard deviations for
grade, were used instead of raw scores.
Magnitude of correlation was examined to select the best measures of reading,
writing, and executive functions for each regression. The best combination was de-
fined on the basis that all the variables predicted to add unique variance did and the
set of variables contributing unique variance accounted for the most variance.
Results are reported in Table 1 for Task A. The same combination of variables
was best for third graders and fifth graders: WIAT–II Reading Comprehension,
PAL Copy Task B, WIAT–II Written Expression, and D–KEFS Inhibition. Results
are reported in Table 2 for Task B. The best combinations of variables contained
some of the same measures but also some different measures for third grader and
fifth graders. For third graders, the following model contributed the most variance
and the predicted variables added unique variance: WIAT–II Reading Comprehen-
sion, WIAT–II Written Expression, D–KEFS Verbal Fluency, and Tower of Hanoi.
For fifth graders, the best model was WIAT–II Reading Comprehension, D–KEFS
Verbal Fluency, WIAT–II Written Expression, and PAL Alphabet Task.
TABLE 1
Best Fitting and Predicting Models That Accounted for the Most Variance
for the Regression and the Most Unique Predictors for Task A Taking
Notes While Reading (Writing Readers)
Standardized
Unique Predictors Coefficient t p
Grade 3a
WIAT–II Reading Comprehension .36 4.72 .001
WIAT–II Written Expression .21 2.48 .001
PAL Copy B .24 3.16 .05
D–KEFS—Inhibition .17 3.27 .05
Grade 5b
WIAT–II Written Expression 2.21 .05
PAL Copy B .77 3.42 .001
D–KEFS—Inhibition .27 2.17 .05
Note. WIAT–II = Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Second Edition; PAL = Process Assess-
ment of the Learner Test for Reading and Writing; D–KEFS = Delis–Kaplan Executive Function Sys-
tem.
aR2 = .549. bR2 = .456.
TABLE 2
Best Fitting and Predicting Models That Accounted for the Most Variance
for the Regression and the Most Unique Predictors for Task B Composing
While Reading Notes (Reading Writers)
Standardized
Unique Predictors Coefficient t p
Grade 3a

D–KEFS—Verbal Fluency .28 3.46 .001
NEPSY–Tower .17 2.53 .05
Grade 5b
PAL Alphabet Writing .18 2.53 .05
D–KEFS—Verbal Fluency .31 3.99 .001
Note. WIAT–II = Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Second Edition; D–KEFS =

Delis–Kaplan Executive Function System; PAL = Process Assessment of the Learner Test for Reading
and Writing.
aR2 = .524. bR2 = .506.
DISCUSSION
The findings of this study replicated Hooper et al.’s (2002) findings for group mean
differences supporting the conclusion that executive functions influence the writ-
ing process. In addition, our study found that executive functions contribute
uniquely to the integration of the reading–writing process over and above reading
and writing achievement alone.
Different executive functions contributed uniquely to the reading–writing con-
nections, depending on the specific reading–writing task (note taking based on
read source material or translating reviewed notes into a report). For example, inhi-
bition was found to contribute most to the note-taking task. This finding may be
explained by the need to select and record only the most useful information (such
as the main ideas and supporting details), inhibiting prepotent response tendencies
that could lead one to copy the text verbatim or include irrelevant details. Verbal
fluency was most important to the report-writing task, and this finding may be due
to the relatively greater need for language generation in composing than note
taking.
Different executive functions were also found to be more or less important de-
pending on the grade level of the student. NEPSY Tower contributed uniquely to
performance on the report-writing task for third graders but not for fifth graders. It
is possible that third graders do not have as much practice or automaticity with this
type of task and so need more planning abilities.
It was also interesting to note which executive functions did not contribute
uniquely. Working memory as measured by the WJ–R Numbers Reversed and
Wolf Rapid Automatized Switching (Supervisory Attention) did not increase pre-
dictive power on either task at either grade for predicting reading–writing integra-
tion. We speculate that these tasks, which do contribute uniquely to reading (e.g.,
Berninger & O’Donnell, 2004), do not contribute uniquely to reading–writing con-
nections (Tasks A and B in this study) because phonological working memory and
supervisory attention are not as critical as are selective attention (focus on the rele-
vant and ignore the irrelevant) and fluency (integrate orthographic, phonological,
and semantic codes efficiently during search of long-term memory) in integrating
reading and writing skills. However, this generalization may hold only for the tasks
studied—note taking from source material and writing reports. Further research is
needed with other tasks and samples to evaluate whether the findings reported in
this article replicate.
In general, this research supports the importance of assessing many different
kinds of executive functions and their potential importance for understanding how
developing writers learn to integrate reading and writing. This study also under-
scores the need for what Zelazo, Muller, Frye, and Marcovitch (2003) described as
a functional approach to defining executive functions by what they regulate. Fur-
ther research is needed on the role of different kinds of executive functions in dif-
ferent kinds of reading, writing, and reading–writing connections at different
stages of development. Further research is also needed on whether these briefly ad-
ministered tasks correlate with performance on reading–writing tasks in the class-
room, including note taking and report writing, but also other instructional activi-
ties that require the integration of reading and writing skills.
A limitation to our study is that the reading–writing tasks only allotted 5 min
each, and many students were stopped before they might have written all that they
could. Second, only two points in development were sampled. Third and fifth
grades, however, are transitional grades according to Fitzgerald and Shanahan’s
(2000) adaptation of Chall’s (1996) model to reading–writing development. Both
models suggest that around fourth grade, a transition to Stage 4 occurs, which in-
volves four new skills. First, there is a dramatic increase in reading and writing in
order to learn new vocabulary, material, and ideas. Second, self-monitoring one’s
own knowledge is important at this time. Third, learning about more complex or-
ganization and syntax within text structures will begin and continue for many years
to come. Fourth, not all relevant executive functions were studied—for example,
review and revision processes (Hayes & Flower, 1980). Finally, there is procedural
knowledge that enables readers and writers to adapt text for a variety of purposes.
In conclusion this initial report on executive functions in our longitudinal study
adds to the Hooper et al. (2002) findings that executive functions play a role in
writing and extends this result to include a role of executive functions in integrat-
ing writing with reading. We hope that these research results will stimulate further
research on reading–writing connections and related executive functions at the de-

velopmental stage when students first learn to integrate writing and reading for the
purposes of writing reports in the content domains of the academic curriculum and
throughout their writing–reading development.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Grant HD25858–15 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Devel-
opment supported this longitudinal research on typical writing development.
We thank Shirley Shimada (research coordinator) and Year-3 testers (Leah
Altemeier, Marci Anderson-Youngstrom, Annie Boyd, Noelia Garcia, Laura
Gould, Cindy Lin, and Daniel Lovitt).
REFERENCES
Baddeley, A. (1996). Exploring the central executive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Experimental Psychology (Special Issue: Working Memory), 49A, 5–28.
Beal, C. R. (1996). The role of comprehension monitoring in children’s revision. Educational Psychol-
ogy Review, 8, 219–238.
Berninger, V. (2001). Process assessment of the learner: Test battery for reading and writing. San An-
tonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Berninger, V. , Dunn, A., & Alper, T. (2004). Integrated models for branching assessment, instructional
assessment, and profile assessment. In A. Prifitera, D. Saklofske, L. Weiss, & E. Rolfhus (Eds.),
WISC–IV Clinical use and interpretation (pp. 151–185). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Berninger, V., & O’Donnell, L. (2004). Research-supported differential diagnosis of specific learning
disabilities. In A. Prifitera, D. Saklofske, L. Weiss, & E. Rolfhus (Eds.), WISC–IV Clinical use and
interpretation (pp. 189–233). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of reading development. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Delis, D. C., Kaplan, E., & Kramer, J. H. (2001). The Delis–Kaplan Executive Function System: Exam-
iner’s Manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Denckla, M. B. (1996). A theory and model of executive function. In G. R. Lyon & N. A. Krasegor
(Eds.), Attention, memory and executive function (pp. 263–278). Baltimore: Brookes.
Einstein, G., Morris, J., & Harris, M. (1985). Effect of note-taking preference and type of notes taken on
memory. Psychological Reports, 77, 522–532.
Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development. Educa-
tional Psychologist, 35, 39–50.
Graham, S. (1997). Executive control in the revising of students with learning and writing difficulties.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 223–234.
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy
& S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-
ates, Inc.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg
& E. R. Steinbert (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Hooper, S. R., Montgomery, J., Swartz, C., Reed, M. S., Sandler, A. D., Levine, M. D., et al. (1994).
Measurement of written language expression. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the as-
sessment of learning disabilities (pp. 375–417). Baltimore: Brookes.
Hooper, S. R., Swartz, C., Wakely, M. B., de Kruif, R. E., & Montgomery, J. (2002). Executive func-
tions in elementary school children with and without problems in written expression. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 35, 57–68.
Kiewra, K. (1985). Learning from a lecture: An investigation of notetaking, review, ad attendance at a
lecture. Human Learning, 4, 73–77.
Korkman, M., Kirk, U., & Kemp, S. (1998). NEPSY: A developmental neurosychological assessment.
San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Lenski, S. D. (1998). Strategic knowledge when reading in order to write. Reading Psychology, 19,
287–315.
Nelson, N., & Calfee, R. C. (1998). The reading–writing connection. In N. Nelson & R. C. Calfee
(Eds.), Ninety-seventh yearbook of the national society for the study of education (Part II, pp. 1–52).
Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1980). Attention to action. Willed and automatic control of behavior.
University of California San Diego CHIP Report 99.
Psychological Corporation. (2001). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX:
Author.
Singer, B. D., & Bashir, A. S. (1999). What are executive functions and self-regulation and what do they
have to do with language-learning disorders? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,
30, 265–273.
Slotte, C., & Lanka, K. (1999). Review of process effects of spontaneous note-taking on text compre-
hension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 1–20.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reaction. Journal of Experimental Psychol-
ogy, 18, 643–662.
Wolf, M. (1986). Rapid alternating stimulus naming in the developmental dyslexias. Brain & Lan-
guage, 27, 360–379.
Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). Woodcock–Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised.
Chicago: Riverside.
Zelazo, P., Carter, A., Reznick, J., & Frye, D. (1997). Early development of executive function: A prob-
lem-solving framework. Review of General Psychology, 1, 198–226.
Zelazo, P., Muller, U., Frye, D., & Marcovitch, S. (2003). The development of executive function in
early childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 68(3, Serial No.
274).

Altemeier 2006

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Altemeier 2006

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University]

On: 20 September 2013, At: 13:49

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326942dn2901_8

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Executive Functions in Becoming

Note Taking and Report Writing in Third

Correspondence should be addressed to Virginia W. Berninger, Department of Educational Psy-

integration process across two written language systems.

ing–note-taking task rather than a listening–note-taking task. The stimulus material

Set of reading achievement, writing achievement, and neuropsycho-

Group Comparisons of Means for Raw Scores

WIAT–II Reading Comprehension .33 4.04 .001

Note. WIAT–II = Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Second Edition; D–KEFS =

research on reading–writing connections and related executive functions at the de-

You might also like