859515

research-article2019
JLRXXX10.1177/1086296X19859515Journal of Literacy ResearchStavans et al.

Article
Journal of Literacy Research
2019, Vol. 51(3) 315­–335
Literacy-Related Abilities’ © The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
Effects on Argumentative sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1086296X19859515
https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X19859515
Text Quality Structure journals.sagepub.com/home/jlr

Anat Stavans1 , Batia Seroussi2,

and Sara Zadunaisky Ehrlich1

Abstract
Writing argumentative texts is a hallmark of literacy attainments with a long and
laborious trajectory. The present study explored the incipient stages in argumentative
texts written by 293 Hebrew-speaking Israeli children in second, third, fourth, and
fifth grades. The literacy cognitive, transcriptional, linguistic, and reading abilities were
analyzed, as well the different text structure quality of children’s argumentative texts.
The results indicate that that both literacy ability and text structure quality increase
with age. However, not all the increases in the different literacy abilities are significant.
Text structure quality—a measure of text organization and ideation—becomes more
sophisticated and complete with age, attaining high-quality text structure in fourth
and fifth grades in the production of autonomous texts with genre-driven elaborate
features. The predictive power of the different literacy abilities to sustain a better-
structured text varies across ages.

Keywords
writing, argumentation, literacy development, text complexity

In societies that value literacy, a paramount development in the life of humans is to

become literate. In the United States as well as other schooling traditions drawing on
the U.S. system, such as that of Israel (where this study takes place), until recently
there has been a pronounced lack of emphasis across the scholastic span on writing
(National Commission on Writing for America’s Families, Schools, and Colleges,
2003) in comparison with reading and math. Yet, today’s most desirable jobs need

1Beit Berl College, Kfar Saba, Israel

2Levinsky College of Education, Tel-Aviv, Israel

Corresponding Author:
Anat Stavans, English Department, Faculty of Society and Culture, Beit Berl College, Kfar Saba 449050,
Israel.
Email: stavansa@beitberl.ac.il
316 Journal of Literacy Research 51(3)

sophisticated writing skills to ensure success, as most paid positions require some
writing responsibilities, promotion relies on good writing skills, and most social and
economic interaction occurs via cyber communication that is based on writing. In the
United States, in 2011, roughly 25% of secondary school children were reported as
having had writing experience explaining or persuading (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2012). Learning to write has become the currency to lifelong commodities
such as education, professionalization, business, and well-being. This currency is pre-
dominantly acquired within the early years of schooling through the trajectory of lit-
eracy development.
In this study, we focus on how novice writers organize the rhetorical layout of argu-
mentative texts, what rhetorical components they include, what abilities are sum-
moned to construe a well-structured text, and how this structure develops throughout
elementary school. To this end, the study aims to analyze the relations between cogni-
tive, transcriptional, linguistic, and reading abilities and the structural quality of argu-
mentative texts written by Israeli, Hebrew-speaking, and Hebrew-writing children
from second to fifth grades. This study is focused on the early development of text
writing quality, which draws on a complex web of knowledge and abilities historically
understudied in the field. Second, it addresses the children’s production of argumenta-
tive texts, a specific, late-emergence genre, given its structural semantic and pragmatic
complexity. Last, it provides a characterization of the developmental path of argumen-
tative text quality in relation to indicators of literacy-related abilities.

Background
The Development of Writing Ability
Writing is a complex activity involving the integration of cognitive, linguistic, and
discursive resources, constrained by content knowledge of the topic (Hayes, 1996;
MacArthur, Graham, & Fitzgerald, 2006). Writing requires planning grounded in
organizational structures of different text genres that were formulated from previous
exposure and consequent expectations of a discourse community (van Dijk, 1980) and
stored in memory for future access (Bruner, 1990). Writing is as much a matter of
discovering or inventing the thought to be expressed in the text as it is a matter of
expressing it in an appropriate and convincing way (Hayes & Flower, 1980), following
organizational structures to guide the text production process (Hayes, 2012).
From a developmental perspective, children’s attention to the written forms of lan-
guage begins earlier than formal instruction in reading and writing. Children experi-
ment and hypothesize about writing before they can read or write, starting with what
they deem to be writing that is readable (Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1979/1982; Stavans,
2015a, 2015b; Teubal, Dockrell, & Tolchinsky, 2007) or distinguish between modes
and modalities of discourse (Lee, Torrance, & Olson, 2001). But as children grow older,
their linguistic, cognitive, and textual abilities increase with experience with written
language, and they contend with two pivotal aspects. The first is the “what” to write
about—namely, content. The second consists of “how” to write about that content,
Stavans et al. 317

monitoring the communicative goals, audience, language (both words and sentences
and their proper ordering), and genre constraints (Deane et al., 2008).
The development of writing goes from emergence to mastery by children’s explora-
tion of and inquiry into the superordinate graphic features of written texts and the
linguistic activities these afford in improving text quality. Writing development
involves continuity (i.e., the progression of writing ability on a continuum), complex-
ity (i.e., the gradual improving of text quality), and sociality (i.e., writing as a tool to
co-construct the self within society) that builds academic literacy (i.e., the gradual
development of linguistic competences, content-dependent knowledge, and the under-
standing of oral and written differences) at school (Ravid & Tolchinsky, 2002). Text
writing is guided by its different intended audiences, registers, genres, and modalities
(Berman & Nir-Sagiv, 2009), which comply with cultural conventions for the overall
text structure and the linguistic forms (Tolchinsky, 2016).
Text writing is an academic ability developed through formal instruction across
school years (Graham, Berninger, & Abbott, 2012), but it emerges before schooling
and continues throughout the life span. Studies of the development of written language
have, a grosso modo, taken either a sequential or simultaneous approach. According to
Tolchinsky (2016), “the great divide” in research on the development of writing is
between (a) studies with a sequential approach (also known as “additive-cumulative
views”), which relates to writing as the transcription or graphic representation of the
spoken language, where written language is generated in sequence, starting with the
sound to the word, sentence, and finally text (Berninger, Abbott, Abbott, Graham, &
Richards, 2002; Berninger & Swanson, 1994; Berninger & Winn, 2006; Juel, Griffith,
& Gough, 1986), and (b) studies with a simultaneous approach (also known as “mutu-
ally enhancing-interactive views”), which relates to writing as a discourse mode that
is a systematic way of encoding meaning and representing language (Berman & Nir-
Sagiv, 2007; Dyson, 1983; Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1979/1982; Ravid & Tolchinsky,
2002). The present study incorporates the sequential and the simultaneous approaches
so as to view the evolution of the production of a well-structured argumentative text
benefiting from both.
To date, there is much research on the development of writing in terms of the
reading–writing connection, the linguistic prerequisites for text production transfer-
ring language to text, and the process and the product features and predictors
involved in writing. There has been a growing emphasis on text quality, yielding
inconclusive results in regard to what text quality is understood to be, how it is stud-
ied, the perspectives taken on what is a “good” text, and different disciplinary orien-
tations toward writing (Berman, 2008).

Text Quality
The way to determine text quality is not straightforward and bears several interpreta-
tions and components whose relative contribution changes with age, modality, and
genre (Berman, 2008; Ravid & Shalom, 2012). Text quality can be established by
subjective holistic expert evaluation (Dockrell, Marshall, & Wyse, 2016; Olinghouse
318 Journal of Literacy Research 51(3)

& Wilson, 2013) or the multiple dimensions of children’s text writing as sustained by
different competencies that must be orchestrated effectively in real time and under the
constraints of limited processing capacity (McCutchen, 2006). This multiple dimen-
sionality and the inherent complexity of the competencies needed in text quality have
been empirically supported by the simple (Berninger et al., 2002; Juel et al., 1986) and
not-so-simple views of writing (Berninger & Winn, 2006). In the simple view of writ-
ing, ideation (i.e., text generation) and transcription are the two basic skills needed to
produce a written text. Ideation or text generation includes thinking not only about the
ideas, or the “what” to write, but also about the “how” to organize these ideas (Juel
et al., 1986). Ideation, which is the preverbalized conceptualization of ideas and
thoughts, is encoded in oral language, which then needs to be translated and tran-
scribed into written language (Berninger et al., 2002; Kim et al., 2011; McCutchen,
2006). The not-so-simple view of writing adds the contribution of working memory
(WM) and self-regulatory executive functions, suggesting that long-term memory is
activated during planning, reviewing, and revising, and short-term memory is acti-
vated during reviewing and revising (Berninger & Winn, 2006).
A complex network of factors explains the difficulty in reaching a good written
text quality, starting with how people define what “text quality” is and how to mea-
sure it in different languages, orthographies, and writing genres and across ages.
Transcriptional, linguistic, and cognitive factors have been shown to contribute to
text writing quality. Moreover, language typology, especially orthography, has been
shown to affect good text writing (Babayiğit & Stainthorp, 2011). Although previous
studies showed that these microstructural compositional (linguistic, cognitive, tran-
scriptional, and reading) factors are at play, the gains in different languages and their
developmental nature remain inconclusive (Tolchinsky, 2016). Similarly, macro-
structure compositional factors—such as organization of the text, the proportion and
presence of functional components of the text, overall coherence and content rich-
ness, and communicative efficacy—have been found to develop slowly, to be highly
dependent on the discourse genre (Berman & Nir-Sagiv, 2007), and to be attained in
early adolescence.
To the best of our knowledge, studies on the developmental staging of argumenta-
tive texts have been scarce and have primarily focused on these texts’ comprehen-
sion or on instructional practices used to teach writing (Horowitz & Wilburn, 2017).
Text structure knowledge in younger children has been studied in terms of text struc-
ture characteristics (Yochum, 1991), readers’ age (Garner & Gillingham, 1987), and
overall comprehension skill (Englert & Hiebert, 1984) leading to structure aware-
ness. However, the construction of texts requires the integration of structural com-
ponents (“events” in narrative texts, “topics” in informative texts, and “claims” in
argumentative texts) into a unified piece of discourse supported by a genre-specific
structure. In argumentative texts, the content is organized as the writers generate
their arguments (Andriessen, Chanquoy, & Coirier, 1999; Ferretti & Fan, 2016).
Awareness of text structure varies as a function of text type, from less structured
(descriptions) to more structured (argumentative texts). Text structure knowledge
together with text organization and reading comprehension are pivotal in primary
Stavans et al. 319

school, not only for procedural text-processing knowledge but also for conceptual
structural knowledge increments (Stavans, Seroussi, Rigbi, & Zadunaisky-Ehrlich,
in press).
Extended discourses such as argumentative texts—oral and written—have been the
focus of several studies for different reasons. First, argumentative writing is one of the
pivotal genres for academic literacy and professional development that is targeted in
formal education once the incipient microstructural compositional skills are attained.
Second, the structure of argumentative texts is relatively more rigid, requiring an
introduction, a body that includes claims, supports to the claim, an optional counter-
claim, and an end (Ferretti, Lewis, Andrews-Weckerly, 2009). Third, exposure to this
genre occurs in later stages of writing development and scholastic curricula than expo-
sure to informative texts. Fourth, the pragmatic skills (i.e., the ability to understand the
mind of the addressee) and linguistic skills (i.e., using the suitable connectors typical
to this genre) contribute further to the relatively late mastery of argumentative texts
(Toulmin, 2003). Last, from a sociocultural perspective, argumentative texts are
socially situated among interlocutors who may have different opinions. Argumentative
texts require that the interlocutors converge on a certain set of propositions and critical
standards that, put together, affect and judge the acceptability of their standpoint
(Ferretti & Fan, 2016; Walton, Reed, & Macagno, 2008).
Taking a developmental perspective, we examine different literacy-related abilities
children recruit (i.e., the macrostructural composition skills) that impinge on the struc-
tural quality of their written argumentative text (i.e., microstructural compositional pro-
ductions; Berman & Nir-Sagiv, 2009; Tolchinsky, 2016). Inspired by Rhetorical
Structure Theory (RST; Mann & Thompson, 1987) and by the work of Bruner (1979),
who saw the writer’s creative expression as the development of autonomous thinking
that generates the writer’s own personal understanding, we espouse the functional
stages in the text as concomitant with content, contextual motivations, and interlocu-
tors, as proposed in the RST. Within the RST framework, rhetorical components are
hierarchically structured with “core” and “peripheral” elements such as the claim and
the support in argumentative texts (O’Hallaron, 2014; Voss & Van Dyke, 2001).
Concordantly, the organization of these components follows the macrostructural com-
positional constraints inherent in the discursive aspect, which are socioculturally bound
(Berman & Nir-Sagiv, 2007; Tolchinsky, 2016), arranging information for particular
purposes (Kress, 1982/1994) and coherently weaving relationships among textual ideas
in a cognitive representation to facilitate text comprehension (Kintsch, 2004), posing
specific problem-solving challenges for the writer in the staging of argumentative texts.
In this study, we focus on a close analysis of the contribution of different cognitive,
linguistic, transcription, and reading abilities as preambles to the production of text
structure quality in argumentative texts. Motivated by the RST, we focus on a tiered
structure borne out of the autonomous textual knowledge (an introduction, the body of
the text, and a concluding end) as well as the genre-specific knowledge of the argu-
mentative text (claim and support). These are indicators of the specific genre and need
to be mastered and imparted to ensure quality of text writing (Tolchinsky, Johansson,
& Zamora, 2002).
320 Journal of Literacy Research 51(3)

Abilities Related to Text Quality Writing

When children engage in writing, they must orchestrate not only the flow and order of
the ideas they wish to express but also the ability to write them fluently—quickly and
accurately (i.e., with correct spelling). Research has shown that transcription—namely,
handwriting—skills contribute to spelling and that the number of words in a composi-
tion is considered a measure of compositional fluency. Writing fluency, a low-level
transcription skill, has been reported to be highly correlated with higher-level aspects
of writing, such as text organization (Bourdin & Fayol, 1994; Chanquoy & Alamargot,
2002; Olive, Alves, & Castro, 2009; Puranik & Al Otaiba, 2012). Wagner et al. (2011)
claim that measures of handwriting fluency tap into richer language aspects in a bidi-
rectional relation, where writing fluency not only forms the basis of well-organized
texts but is the outcome of the development of higher-level writing and language
skills. Writing fluency involves motor skills and plays a role in text productivity
(Graham, Berninger, Abbott, Abbott, & Whitaker, 1997), but studies have shown that
writing skills do not necessarily generalize across genres. High handwriting fluency
and accuracy frees cognitive abilities such as WM and attention to sustain ideas and
text organization.
The cognitive load in writing is notable, requiring writers’ attention to planning,
problem-solving, short- and long-term memory, executive functions, and recruitment
of meta-cognitive and metalinguistic knowledge to achieve a well-written text (Kim &
Schatschneider, 2017). Among the cognitive skills (measured by Raven’s Progressive
Matrices, rapid automatized naming [RAN], WM) related to writing development of
text quality, Raven—a nonverbal cognitive measure—provides a cognitive basis for
ideational organization grounded in the ability to reason and infer a point of view, state
it clearly, and back it up in a logical manner, weaving educed relations between claims
and support (Kim & Schatschneider, 2017). RAN, used for assessing reading and
spelling, rendered inconclusive results borne out of different language typologies,
reading dimensions measured (speed and accuracy), reading material, different analy-
ses, and different RAN tasks (letters, words of specific semantic field, digits, etc.). Yet,
RAN measures in writing are scarce and novel (Albuquerque, 2017), mostly used in
relation to spelling accuracy within and across languages, indicate the writers’ prog-
ress with age as encoding becomes more automatized and less laborious (Berninger &
Winn, 2006). WM relates to online production effect on processing overload, assum-
ing that children’s writing develops within a limited working-memory capacity
(Swanson & Berninger, 1996) that gradually automates components related to low-
level processes (e.g., transcription skills) to free resources for other cognitive and lin-
guistic demands while writing an argumentative text (Maggio, Lété, Chenu, Jisa, &
Fayol, 2012).
Ideas must be translated into language by means of words and their proper sequenc-
ing into syntactically appropriate structures. Lexical richness constituting different
vocabulary constructs has been reported to be a good predictor of writing quality in a
given genre; it is often measured in terms of breadth (number of words) and depth
(words that bear semantic complexity). Although both features have been shown to
Stavans et al. 321

affect the quality of a written text, lexical breadth has been reported to be a better pre-
dictor in narrative and descriptive texts, whereas lexical depth is a better predictor in
persuasive texts among fifth graders (Olinghouse & Wilson, 2013). Castillo and
Tolchinsky (2017) have shown that lexical depth measured in a synonym/antonym
task was related to text productivity, lexical richness, and text structure. The relation
between syntactic knowledge and good text structure is inconclusive and depends on
the methods used to measure it. Research on syntactic complexity has shown that stu-
dents use increasingly complex syntactic structures as they gain familiarity and skill
with school-related writing (Reilly, Zamora, & McGivern, 2005; Schleppegrell, 2004).
However, few studies have reported on how this development occurs during early
grade levels and in different text genres (Purcell-Gates, 1988; Tower, 2003).
Grammaticality judgment ability administered on third graders predicted text quality
ratings (Olinghouse, 2008), and receptive grammar and written productivity have been
shown to be related in late kindergarten age children (Kim et al., 2011).
Reading ability has also been shown to be related to writing (Fitzgerald & Shanahan,
2000; Shanahan, MacArthur, Graham, & Fitzgerald, 2006), examining rather narrow
aspects of reading (e.g., word reading) and its influences on writing (e.g., spelling).
Broader aspects of reading–writing relations have been reported (Shanahan & Lomax,
1986), where reading-related skills (e.g., word analysis, vocabulary size, and compre-
hension) interactively influenced writing-related skills (e.g., spelling, vocabulary use,
syntactic knowledge, and knowledge of story structure) among second through fifth
graders. Similarly, high and low reading skills were related to composition quality and
fluency among first to fourth graders (Abbott & Berninger, 1993; Stavans et al., in
press), and third graders’ word-reading ability (i.e., word identification) was positively
related to compositional quality, after accounting for gender, compositional fluency,
IQ, and grammatical understanding (Olinghouse, 2008). Moreover, the relations found
between the reading skills and the structure of the texts vary across ages, genres, and
text components. This variability and the strength of the relations is evidence that writ-
ing in elementary school evolves slowly, and that some reading skills do not seem to
be related to text structure production (Stavans et al., in press).
To our knowledge, quality text structure in argumentative texts has not been studied
cross-sectionally throughout elementary school years in Hebrew-speaking and
Hebrew-writing children. While there have been studies (surveyed above) on some of
the abilities and the production of written texts, these have looked at text quality in
terms of linguistic forms and functions, at some ages, with different tasks.

This Study
This study traces the relations between children’s age-dependent cognitive, transcrip-
tional, linguistic, and reading abilities and the text structure quality of argumentative
text, as evidenced in the structural components deployed in the written texts (i.e., the
presence of both macro- and micro-components in the structure of an argumentative
text to sustain both textual autonomy knowledge and genre-specific knowledge). To
this end, we address the following research questions: (1): Is there a developmental
difference between and within the cognitive, transcriptional, linguistic, and reading
322 Journal of Literacy Research 51(3)

abilities of Hebrew-writing and Hebrew-speaking children as related to text quality

(i.e., predictors of text quality)? Are these abilities related to each other? (2): Is there
a developmental difference between the productions of an argumentative text structure
across the grade levels? (3): Is there a contribution of the different abilities (predictors)
to the argumentative text structure production?

Method
Participants
The participants in this study were 291 Hebrew-speaking schoolchildren (151 boys
and 140 girls) in Grades 2 (n = 69), 3 (n = 69), 4 (n = 68), and 5 (n = 85), from three
public schools in middle to high socioeconomic status (SES) residence areas in central
Israel. Participants’ age was defined by their grade level. Seven participants were not
included because they were newcomers with less than 2 years of schooling in Israel,
and six participants dropped from the sample because they left the school midyear. All
participants included in the sample had signed parental permission to take part in the
study. Participants attended schools that followed the National Literacy Curriculum,
which adopted a phonics-based approach to literacy instruction in first grade, followed
by a gradual engagement with texts through systematic teaching of linguistic struc-
tures and discourse patterns. The national curriculum promotes explicit instruction and
meaningful context in the production and comprehension of texts in all oral and writ-
ten modalities, connecting the sociocultural role of the text, the text content and com-
ponents, and the discourse and language of the text.

Material and Procedures

This study examined the relations between transcription, linguistic, reading, and cog-
nitive abilities and argumentative text structure quality.

Abilities (independent variables). Cognitive ability was assessed by three different tests.
The WM test was administered individually (Shany, Bahat, Lachman, Shalem, & Zei-
ger, 2006). The children heard sentences and were asked to complete the missing word
in each sentence. Then, they repeated the missing words in the correct sequence. The
number of items in each set increased from two to six. For scoring, a child received 1
point for each correctly repeated word and an extra point for repeating all the words in
each set in the correct sequence. The final score was transformed into percentages.
The Raven’s Colored Progressive Matrices (Raven, Court, & Raven, 1990) were
administered collectively. Children were asked to identify the missing element that
completed a pattern in each one of the test items, which were presented in the form of
6 × 6 matrix. There are no Israeli standardized scores or percentiles for this measure,
although it is widely used. The typical scoring of this measure is either by the raw
number of correct answers (range = 0-36) or by a percentage of correct answers out of
36 points. Hence, scoring consisted of 1 point for each correct answer.
Stavans et al. 323

RAN, or rapid automatized (letter) naming (Shany et al., 2006) was administered
individually and consisted of 50 printed letters that were presented, and the child had
to read them aloud as fast as possible. The letters are five (nonfinal) Hebrew letters,
each repeated randomly 10 times. Scores were calculated by the number of letters per
minute read correctly and transformed into percentages.
Transcription ability was measured by handwriting fluency and spelling. A hand-
writing fluency task, measuring the number of letters written in a minute (Wagner
et al., 2011), was administered individually. A score of the types to token ratio (TTR)
was obtained by dividing the types of different letters written by their tokens (total
number of letters). We deemed the TTR to be a better assessment of handwriting flu-
ency quality as it distinguishes between fluency grounded in writing a single letter
many times as opposed to fluency of writing many different letters.
Spelling was assessed collectively in class. The researcher dictated two different
lists of 20 words in each list: one list of content words and one list of function words
(Shany et al., 2006). A combined percentage score of correct spelling (out of 40 items)
of both types of words was calculated.
Linguistic ability was measured in terms of lexical depth and syntactic receptive score.
Lexical depth was measured by a synonym/antonym test (Glanz, 1989; Seroussi, 2011),
where children were requested to provide synonyms and antonyms to 15 words in two dif-
ferent lists, respectively, and by an adjectives test, which checked morpho-lexical skills by
asking children to complete 10 sentences with derivational adjectives (Avivi Ben-Zvi,
2010). Scores of each test were collapsed into the lexical depth score. The syntactic recep-
tive score consisted of the average scores on two tasks—the syntax judgment and correc-
tion, in which the children heard incorrect sentences and were requested to say them
correctly, and the sentence paraphrasing task, where the children heard sentences and were
requested to paraphrase them by adding a word provided by the researcher.
Reading ability was measured by high- and low-level reading skills. High-level read-
ing skills were measured by reading comprehension tests containing an informative and
an argumentative text for each grade level; each test included 15 multiple-choice ques-
tions targeting different levels of understanding based on the accessibility of information
in the text (Brandão & Oakhill, 2005). Tests were administrated in class. Low-level
reading skills were assessed by two reading accuracy and fluency tests consisting of
reading 38 isolated words and reading a whole narrative text (Shany et al., 2006), both
administered individually. The phonological awareness test constituted a phoneme dele-
tion test administered individually (Shany et al., 2006). Scores for the phonemic aware-
ness test were the percentage of correct responses recorded; for the word- and text-reading
fluency and accuracy, the percentages of correct reading were calculated; and for the
reading comprehension test, percentages of correct answers were calculated. Low- and
high-level scores constituted a weighted score of the relevant tests.

Text structure quality (dependent variable). Two argumentative texts were produced by
each child on one of the following topics: (a) shortening the school week in exchange for
longer study days, (b) introducing vending machines in school, or (c) instituting a school
uniform. One text was administered individually and the other was administered in class
324 Journal of Literacy Research 51(3)

by a researcher. The topics of the texts were assigned randomly, ensuring that each child
wrote on two of the three topics. The instructions for the text production (in class or
individually) were (in free translation from Hebrew) as follows:

Now, I would like you to write me a text (essay) about:

. . . running a long school day in exchange for no school on Fridays at school. You
probably know that there is disagreement as to whether it is right to run a long school
day throughout the week in return for no school on Friday;
. . . introducing vending machines selling sweets, snacks, and drinks to schools. You
probably know that there is a debate about whether or not to install candy, snacks,
and sweetened drinks vending machines in schools; or
. . . instituting a school uniform. You probably know that there is a lot of talk about
whether to institute a school uniform or not.
What do you think? Why? Explain as much as possible your position on the subject so
that you can convince the school administration and the parents.

The time limit for the task was the class period (roughly 40 min). Texts were ana-
lyzed for length (the number of clauses per text) and text structure components
(proportion calculated as number of clauses in the component divided by total num-
ber of clauses in the text). All texts were transcribed in orthographic transcription
exactly as the children wrote them (including spelling and punctuation), segmented
into clauses (Berman & Slobin, 1994), and coded for the text structure component,
as illustrated below.
Following the genre and the rhetorical theoretical frames aforementioned, compo-
nents were defined as rhetorical components (introduction and end plus components
that constitute the body of the specific genre) and genre-specific components. Each
component present in the text was counted. The minimal condition for inclusion of an
argumentative text was that it contained at least a claim clause and one support clause.
Only nine cases were omitted from the database because they did not meet the thresh-
old condition. Texts containing all five components—introduction, claim, counter-
claim, support, end—were ranked on a 1 to 4 scale as Rank 4, see Appendix A.

Data Analysis
To address our first question, we first conducted a nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test
because of the nonnormal distribution of the predictors, to determine differences in
predictors between grades. To address our second question, we first built the text struc-
ture quality ranks, as described above, and the association between ranks and grade
was analyzed using chi-square. To address our third question, at the univariate analy-
sis, we performed the Kruskal–Wallis test in each grade separately to determine differ-
ences in predictors between ranks, and for the multivariate analysis, we ran a
cumulative odds ordinal logistic regression with proportional odds to determine the
effect of different cognitive tests (Raven, RAN, syntactic receptive score, lexical
depth, reading high level, reading low level, WFTTR, and spelling) on the
Stavans et al. 325

argumentative text structure quality. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS statistics
software (Version 25.0, for Windows), and p < .05 was considered to be significant for
all analyses.

Results
Addressing our first question, the results show there is a developmental difference
across the cognitive, transcriptional, linguistic, and reading abilities (predictor indi-
cators). As the distributions were nonnormal, we used the median for each predictor
variable to show that each of the predictors develops with age, and we conducted a
Kruskal–Wallis test to ascertain that these increments across ages are statistically
significant. There were statistically significant differences in the predictors’ median
across ages, with a continuous increase from Grade 2 to Grade 5 for most of
the predictors (p < .0001) and a continuous decrease for writing fluency TTR
(p < .0001). For example, Raven increased from a median of 88.9 in the second
grade to 94.4 in the fifth grade, χ2(3) = 23.9, p < .001. Only the high-level reading
score, with an increase from second to fourth grade and a sudden decrease in fifth
grade, was not statistically significant. Spearman rho correlation between predictors
is illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1. Correlations Between Ability (Predictor) Variables by Grade Level.

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Second grade (above —) Third grade (below —)

1. Raven — .454** .430** .382** .344**
2. RAN — .259* .328**
3. Syntactic receptive score .317** — .588** .477** .350**
4. Lexical depth .585** — .579** .321* .396**
5. Reading high level .274* .620** .618** — .383** .361**
6. Reading low level .364** .315** .285* .414** — −.258* .451**
7. Writing fluency (TTR) — −.259*
8. Spelling correct .271* .519** .436** .247* —
Fourth grade (above —) Fifth grade (below —)
1. Raven — .281* .436** .300*
2. RAN —
3. Syntactic receptive score .320** — .675** .670** 0.233 .520**
4. Lexical depth .525** — .659** .422** .422**
5. Reading high level .377** .517** .445** — .434**
6. Reading low level .230* .351** .508** .466** — .295*
7. Writing fluency (TTR) −.342** −.238* −.331** −.281* —
8. Spelling correct .301** .418** .334** .447** −.252* —

Note. Second grade (N = 61), third grade (N = 68), fourth grade (N = 66), and fifth grade (N = 83). RAN = rapid
automatized naming; TTR = types to token ratio.
*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).

Across all age groups, there was a statistically significant, positive correlation
between nonverbal cognitive ability (Raven) and syntactic receptive ability, for
326 Journal of Literacy Research 51(3)

example, in second grade, rs(61) = .454, p < .0001; in third grade, rs(68) = .317, p <
.0001; in fourth grade, rs(66) = .281, p < .05; and in fifth grade, rs(83) = .320, p <
.0001, and also between Raven and high-level reading ability. However, other cognitive
abilities, such as RAN, are only positively correlated in second grade with syntax and
lexical depth and are negatively correlated with writing fluency in fifth grade. At all
ages, there was a positive correlation between the syntactic receptive ability and high
reading ability, spelling, and lexical depth. Lexical depth shows a positive correlation
with both high and low reading ability as well as spelling. Spelling has a positive cor-
relation to both high and low reading skills. In all, across all ages, children with a good
linguistic ability (syntactic, lexical) also have a good reading ability (high and low) and
good transcription ability (spelling).
Our second question concerns the developmental difference between the produc-
tions of an argumentative text structure across the grade levels (predicted variable).
The results show that there is a significant difference between the text structure quality
across the ages. Figure 1 illustrates the percentage of children in each grade who pro-
duced a text structure at a different quality rank, as described above.

Figure 1. Percentage of children in each text structure rank by grade level.

Overall, the basic (minimal) structure (Rank 2), constituting a claim and support,
indicates that across all ages, children are able to produce an argumentative text
(micro-components) from second grade on. Moreover, our findings showed that with
age, children expand their knowledge beyond the basic text to the more genre-driven
autonomous text (represented in the higher Ranks 4 and 5), starting with third grade,
with 26% of the texts (constituting both elements of micro- and macro-components) at
the same rank, to the fifth grade, with 37% of the texts at the same rank. This develop-
mental leap from the basic text to an autonomous genre-driven text that deploys
Stavans et al. 327

specific discourse functions (e.g., an introduction, stating the topic of the argument
rather than just stating the position taken by the writer), along with the definition of
clear textual boundaries that set the text apart from the situational context (e.g., a
multiple-component structure that introduces a counterargument, attesting to the fact
that the writer is addressing a potential reader who might have a different opinion).
Moreover, the findings further indicate that there was a statistically significant asso-
ciation between ranks and grade, χ2(9) = 34.8, p < .001.
The findings addressing our third question, regarding the contribution of the differ-
ent abilities (predictors) to the argumentative text structure production, showed that at
the univariate level, in second and fourth grades, only WFTTR appeared to show dif-
ferences between the ranks (p < .05), and in second grade RAN was also different
between the ranks (p < .05). No other significant differences were found.
At the multivariate level, we entered all the predictors so that it would be possible
to compare between the differential contributions of the predictors at each grade.
There was no evidence of multicollinearity between predictors, as assessed by toler-
ance values greater than 0.1. Different predictors appeared to affect the likelihood of
writing a high-quality text depending on grade, as illustrated in Table 2.

Table 2. Ordinal Logistic Regression Text Quality Ranks of Argumentative Texts.

Grade Second degree Third degree Fourth degree Fifth degree

Variable OR (95% CI) Significance OR (95% CI) Significance OR (95% CI) Significance OR (95% CI) Significance

Raven 1.02 [0.94, 1.12] 0.591 0.99 [0.93, 1.04] 0.633 1.09 [1.01, 1.18] p<.05 0.98 [0.94, 1.03] 0.408
RAN 1.11 [1.01, 1.21] p<.05 1 [0.95, 1.05] 0.934 1 [0.95, 1.05] 0.864 1.01 [0.97, 1.05] 0.803
Syntactic 0.99 [0.93, 1.05] 0.709 1 [0.95, 1.04] 0.851 1.06 [1.01, 1.12] p<.05 1.01 [0.98, 1.04] 0.683
receptive
Lexical depth 0.97 [0.9, 1.05] 0.478 1 [0.95, 1.05] 0.940 0.92 [0.87, 0.97] p<.01 0.95 [0.92, 0.99] p<.05
Reading high 1.04 [0.98, 1.1] 0.234 1.02 [0.98, 1.07] 0.230 0.99 [0.96, 1.03] 0.655 1 [0.97, 1.04] 0.831
Reading low 1.03 [0.94, 1.12] 0.563 1.08 [1, 1.17] p<.05 1.03 [0.96, 1.1] 0.389 1.05 [0.97, 1.13] 0.202
Writing 0.04 [0, 1.27] 0.068 0.59 [0.05, 6.85] 0.675 0.02 [0, 0.33] p<.01 3.75 [0.12, 11.17] 0.453
fluency
(TTR)
Spelling 1.01 [0.96, 1.06] 0.730 1 [0.97, 1.04] 0.854 0.99 [0.95, 1.04] 0.760 1.04 [1, 1.08] p<.05
correct

Note. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; RAN = Rapid automatized naming; TTR = types to token ratio.

In the second grade, an increase in RAN was associated with an increase in the odds
of writing a high-quality text structure, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.108 (95% confi-
dence interval [CI] = [1.011, 1.214], p < .05), adjusting for all covariates. In the third
grade, the only significant predictor was the low level of reading, based on phonologi-
cal awareness and text and word-reading fluency, with an increase in the odds of writ-
ing a high text structure quality (OR = 1.082, 95% CI = [1.001, 1.169], p < .05). In
the fourth grade, of the eight predictor variables, four were statistically significant:
Raven, syntactic receptive score, lexical depth, and WFTTR, with an OR of 1.093
(95% CI = [1.010, 1.183], p < .05), 1.064 (95% CI = [1.015, 1.115], p < .01), 0.919
(95% CI = [0.868, 0.972], p < .005), and 0.020 (95% CI = [0.001, 0.332], p < .01),
respectively. In the fifth grade, an increase in lexical depth was associated with a
328 Journal of Literacy Research 51(3)

reduction in the likelihood of producing a written high-quality text structure, with an

OR of 0.953 (95% CI = [0.918, 0.990], p < .05), and an increase in the percentage of
words without spelling errors was associated with an increase in the odds of producing
a written high-quality text structure, with an OR of 1.040 (95% CI = [1.002, 1.078],
p < .05), adjusting for all covariates.

Discussion
The ability to write a well-structured argumentative text develops gradually and dif-
ferentially across the elementary school years. Overall, the patterns of the scores fol-
low a developmental increment as expected in terms of cognitive, transcriptional,
linguistic, and reading abilities as well as text structure measures. Yet, not all incre-
ments turned out to be significant across the ages. Developmental leaps are more pro-
nounced and significant between the young and old age groups (second and fifth).
We addressed three main issues to investigate what abilities are summoned to con-
strue a well-structured text, how novice writers organize the rhetorical layout of argu-
mentative texts and which rhetorical components they include to do so, and how this
structure develops throughout elementary school. First, we sought to evaluate the cogni-
tive, linguistic, reading, and transcriptional abilities children must convene to produce a
written argumentative text. All measures increased with age in a significant manner
except for writing fluency TTR. Moreover, across all ages, linguistic (syntactic receptive
ability, lexical depth), reading (high and low ability), and transcriptional (spelling) abili-
ties are closely related, so that when there is good syntactic receptive ability, there are
also good reading comprehension, lexical depth, and spelling abilities.
Our second goal was to profile the ways by which novice writers organize their ideas
into a well-staged argumentative rhetorical pattern in line with RST that states that an
argumentative text constituting core and peripheral components and deploying a fuller
understanding of an autonomous and genre-specific text. The results in this study
showed that the number of text structure components increases with school grade. In
second-grade texts, the basic argumentative units (claim and support) are the most
likely structures to be produced; nevertheless, this same type of text structure probabil-
ity is lower in third grade, even lower in fourth grade, and nearly a third of the texts in
fifth grade are likely to be of the basic type. A text reflecting a greater sophistication in
its core (genre-specific) component has a similar likelihood to be produced in the sec-
ond, fourth, and fifth grades. Yet, the probability of finding argumentative texts with
peripheral elements such as an introduction and an end increases with age from third to
fourth to fifth grade, whereas the probability of finding basic core text structure
decreases. Last, texts with the most comprehensive and canonical argumentative struc-
ture, containing all core (genre-specific) and peripheral (introduction and end—autono-
mous text) components, are likely to be found from third grade on and increase in
fourth and also in fifth grade. Although the writing curriculum from second grade on
includes teaching writing of different genres, among which is the argumentative text,
the production of a more autonomous text that contains an introduction, a body (the
genre-specific component of the text), and an end seems to develop from third grade but
is more likely to appear in fourth and more so in fifth grade. Children in fourth and fifth
Stavans et al. 329

grade are likely to include in their argumentative structure an introduction or an end but
are less likely to have both.
The incremental development in literacy abilities as well as in the quality of the
texts’ structure in Hebrew-speaking and Hebrew-writing elementary school children
in Israel has been demonstrated. These increments are more pronounced at some ages
and less so at others, indicating that literacy abilities and text structure quality are not
“one size fits all” in their development, partly due to a statistical artifact that is a result
of analyzing rank groups within grades that are small in size and uneven.
Our third goal was to explore the contributing power of literacy abilities to the text
structure quality so as to profile which abilities seem to have a greater effect on the produc-
tion of a well-structured text. Different literacy abilities predict better text structure at dif-
ferent grade levels. In second grade, children who are better at RAN and who have better
letter-writing ability produce better-structured texts, albeit mostly of a basic and genre-
specific type of text. At this age, children who master low-level writing transcription and
have better knowledge of letters write better texts. In third grade, children who are better at
low-level reading ability (i.e., have better phonemic awareness and accurately read words
and texts) seem to be better at producing a well-structured text of predominantly genre-
based structure but also better autonomous texts that include peripheral elements. Hence,
third graders compared with second graders show a leap in text structure quality, and the
lower-level reading abilities seem to be supporting it. That said, both second and third
graders seem to produce better basic “core” component genre-specific texts as they are
being sustained by the microstructural elements (Ferretti et al., 2009; Tolchinsky, 2016).
Children in fourth grade seem to make the biggest leap in producing well-structured
argumentative texts. Those who have gained exposure to and experience with argumenta-
tive texts through written and oral language have shown an increasing ability to produce
argumentative texts that contain more sophistication in the “core” elements (Rank 3 above)
as well as greater performance in producing incipient and advanced use of peripheral ele-
ments (Rank 4) and the more mature structure (Rank 5). What seems to support these
productions is the nonverbal cognitive task, which relates to the ability to organize infor-
mation and hence support the planning of the texts so as to translate ideas into text, result-
ing in better-structured texts. Also, better linguistic abilities, both syntactic knowledge and
lexical depth, provide fourth graders with means to translate their ideas in a richer text
structure so as to include more elements and to organize them in accordance with textual
conventions. In line with the findings of Berman and Nir-Sagiv (2007), who state that the
macrostructure compositional factors—such as organization of the text, the proportion and
presence of functional components of the text, and communicative efficacy—are highly
dependent on the discourse genre, we found this to be attained in fourth grade, earlier than
early adolescence. However, the transcriptional ability of writing fluency seems to also
sustain the text structure quality in fourth grade, but differently than in second grade.
Fourth graders have greater writing fluency, manifested in a higher TTR of quantity and
variety of letters written in a minute, and they also have a greater spectrum of types of text
structure quality production, which goes beyond the basic core components. The transition
into better and more complete text structure of argumentative texts seems to occur when
the relations between the content and the discursive structure assume prominence, result-
ing in an autonomous genre-driven text (Tolchinsky et al., 2002).
330 Journal of Literacy Research 51(3)

Good text structure quality beyond the basic core argumentative elements increases
and seems to settle in fifth grade. There is above a 50% probability that a fifth grader
will produce an autonomous, argumentative text with genre-specific loci. The leap
from fourth to fifth grade in the text structure type is in proportion to texts that contain
four and five elements. Again, this is not surprising, as the curricular program that de
jure declares that from second grade on there should be a focus on genre, does not
align with the de facto practices and requirements in the classrooms argumentative
text writing. However, in fifth grade, practice and exposure—as in fourth grade—
seem to enhance the structure of argumentative texts. What seems to sustain a good
text structure quality in fifth grade (like in fourth grade) is the lexical depth, as mea-
sured by synonyms, antonyms, and adjectives, as also shown by Castillo and Tolchinsky
(2017), suggesting the linguistic ability to retrieve different words attests to a metalin-
guistic awareness needed for a richer text structure. Also, spelling in fifth grade sus-
tains better text structure quality, as shown by Graham, McKeown et al. (2012). A
better command of spelling facilitates children’s attention to the rhetorical space,
resulting in an improved quality of text structure.
To conclude, argumentative text structure quality consolidates in the first years of
elementary school. The ultimate argumentative text quality structure and production
are influenced by different literacy abilities, as documented in previous studies and
supported in the present one. While cognitive, linguistic, transcriptional, and reading
abilities are literacy-enhancing predictors that improve with children’s age, their con-
tribution to text quality in general, and to text structure in particular, is dependent on
both genre and age. This study’s results add another tier to the relatively sparse research
on writing quality of argumentative texts and call for other studies in different lan-
guages, orthographies, and textual traditions to shed light on the complexity of text-
quality development. In particular, studies that involve different ages, different
educational practices, and multiple variables will help our understanding of the more
universal factors contributing to text quality as well as shed light on other facets of text
quality. Text quality clearly is not fully defined or understood in terms of its produc-
tion development, although there may be didactic and pedagogic rubrics and practices
that are informed by an end state of the writing process. There is still a need to go
beyond the individual abilities, processes, and products, as these may be reshaped by
our understanding of more sociocultural and participatory writing practices across lan-
guages and educational practices in different countries. The current study was moti-
vated by theoretical and practical information on the development of writing in
school-age children, and thus its findings may have educational implications. The
multidimensionality of and interaction between the indicators that relate to a good
quality argumentative text structure are highly relevant to delineate for educators the
need for bottom-up and top-down instruction of argumentative text structure. On one
hand, our findings show that children perceive the basic text structure and identify the
essential elements required to make an argument, including an introduction, a claim
with support as the body of the argument, and a conclusion affirming their point of
view. On the other hand, what determines a high text quality of an argumentative text
is the presence of more elaborate genre-specific components, such as counterclaims,
Stavans et al. 331

which are less frequent, and the length of the different components, which are related
to text content and ideas. The presence of these components prevails across all ages,
but only the more experienced and instructed children produce richer and more bal-
anced texts including more sophisticated components such as counterclaims. The
introduction of counterclaims indicates some consideration for the recipient/reader of
the text, acknowledging that there may be an opposing opinion/claim to the one taken
by the writer. That is, a balanced text in terms of macrostructural components reflects
a greater degree of text autonomy, leading to a multivoiced text that can invite dia-
logue with different potential readers (Leitão, 2003). This balanced text is not restricted
quantitatively to the textual, genre, and discourse knowledge of the writer but relies on
linguistic and transcriptional skills that enhance it. Thus, one of the implications for
teaching writing of argumentative texts, in line with other scholars’ recommendations
(see, for example, Cope & Kalantzis, 2014; Graham, McKeown, Kiuhara, & Harris,
2012), may necessitate a more systematic instruction and different assessment para-
digms of the structure to convene both the macrostructural components (introduction,
body, and end) as well as genre-specific components across all grade levels.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation
Grant #1105/14.

ORCID iD
Anat Stavans https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1000-5262

Supplemental material
The abstracts in languages other than English are available online.

References
Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (1993). Structural equation modeling of relationships among
developmental skills and writing skills in elementary and intermediate grade writers.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 478-508. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.478
Albuquerque, C. P. (2017). Rapid naming: The importance of different reading and spelling
dimensions. Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana, 35, 43-60. doi:10.12804/revistas.
urosario.edu.co/apl/a.3715
Andriessen, J. E. B., Chanquoy, L., & Coirier, P. (1999). From planning to translating: The
specificity of argumentative writing. In G. Rijlaarsdam, E. Esperet, J. E. B. Andriessen, &
P. Coirier (Eds.), Studies in writing: Vol. 5, Foundations of argumentative text processing
(pp. 1-28). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
Avivi Ben-Zvi, G. (2010). Morpho-lexical development across the school years (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. (In Hebrew)
332 Journal of Literacy Research 51(3)

Babayiğit, S., & Stainthorp, R. (2011). Modeling the relationships between cognitive–linguistic
skills and literacy skills: New insights from a transparent orthography. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 103, 169-189. doi:10.1037/a0021671
Berman, R. A. (2008). The psycholinguistics of developing text construction. Journal of Child
Language, 35, 735-771. doi:10.1017/S0305000908008787
Berman, R. A., & Nir-Sagiv, B. (2007). Comparing narrative and expository text construc-
tion across adolescence: A developmental paradox. Discourse Processes, 43, 79-120.
doi:10.1080/01638530709336894
Berman, R. A., & Nir-Sagiv, B. (2009). Cognitive and linguistic factors in evaluating text qual-
ity: Global versus local. In V. Evans, & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive
linguistics (pp. 421-440). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Berman, R. A., & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic develop-
mental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., Graham, S., & Richards, T. (2002). Writing and
reading: Connections between language by hand and language by eye. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 35, 39-56. doi:10.1177/002221940203500104
Berninger, V. W., & Swanson, H. L. (1994). Modifying Hayes and Flower’s model of skilled
writing to explain beginning and developing writing. In E. C. Butterfield (Ed.), Children’s
writing: Toward a process theory of the development of skilled writing (Vol. 2, pp. 57-81).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Berninger, V. W., & Winn, W. D. (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, NY: Guilford Press.
Bourdin, B., & Fayol, M. (1994). Is written language production more difficult than oral lan-
guage production? A working memory approach. International Journal of Psychology, 29,
591-620.
Brandão, A. C. P., & Oakhill, J. (2005). “How do you know this answer?”—Children’s use
of text data and general knowledge in story comprehension. Reading and Writing, 18,
687-713.
Bruner, J. S. (1979). On knowing: Essays for the left hand. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning (Vol. 3). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Castillo, C., & Tolchinsky, L. (2017). The contribution of vocabulary knowledge and semantic
orthographic fluency to text quality through elementary school in Catalan. Reading and
Writing, 31, 293-323.
Chanquoy, L., & Alamargot, D. (2002). Working memory and writing: Model evolution and
research assessment. L’Annee psychologique, 102, 363-398.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2014). The powers of literacy (RLE Edu I): A genre approach to
teaching writing. London, England: Routledge.
Deane, P., Odendahl, N., Quinlan, T., Fowles, M., Welsh, C., & Bivens-Tatum, J. (2008).
Cognitive models of writing: Writing proficiency as a complex integrated skill. ETS
Research Report Series, 2008(2), i-36. doi:10.1002/j.2333-8504.2008.tb02141.x
Dockrell, J. E., Marshall, C. R., & Wyse, D. (2016). Teachers’ reported practices for teaching
writing in England. Reading and Writing, 29, 409-434. doi:10.1007/s11145-015-9605-9
Dyson, A. H. (1983). The role of oral language in early writing processes. Research in the
Teaching of English, 17(1), 1-30.
Englert, C. S., & Hiebert, E. H. (1984). Children’s developing awareness of text structures in
expository materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 65-74.
Stavans et al. 333

Ferreiro, E., & Teberosky, A. (1982). Literacy before schooling. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
(Original work published 1979).
Ferretti, R. P., & Fan, Y. (2016). Argumentative writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J.
Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd ed., pp. 301-315). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Ferretti, R. P., Lewis, W. E., & Andrews-Weckerly, S. (2009). Do goals affect the structure of
students’ argumentative writing strategies? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 577-
589. doi:10.1037/a0014702
Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development.
Educational Psychologist, 35, 39-50. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3501_5
Garner, R., & Gillingham, M. G. (1987). Students’ knowledge of text structure. Journal of
Reading Behavior, 19, 247-259. doi:10.1080/10862968709547603
Glanz, J. (1989). Chemed: A comprehensive testing battery. Ramat Gan, Israel: Barak. (In
Hebrew)
Graham, S., Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. (2012). Are attitudes toward writing and reading
separable constructs? A study with primary grade children. Reading & Writing Quarterly,
28, 51-69. doi:10.1080/10573569.2012.632732
Graham, S., Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., & Whitaker, D. (1997). Role of
mechanics in composing of elementary school children: A new methodological approach.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 170-182. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.170
Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruc-
tion for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 879-896.
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: Theories, methods, individual dif-
ferences, and applications (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29, 369-388.
doi:10.1177/0741088312451260
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W.
Gregg, & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3-29). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Horowitz, R., & Wilburn, M. (2017). Creating a macrostructure in academic writing:
Contributions of tutor–tutee interaction when performing a text revision. Reading &
Writing Quarterly, 33, 364-379.
Juel, C., Griffith, P. L., & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study
of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 243-255.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.78.4.243
Kim, Y.-S. G., Al Otaiba, S., Puranik, C., Sidler, J. F., Greulich, L., & Wagner, R. K. (2011).
Componential skills of beginning writing: An exploratory study. Learning and Individual
Differences, 21, 517-525. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.06.004
Kim, Y.-S. G., & Schatschneider, C. (2017). Expanding the developmental models of writing: A
direct and indirect effects model of developmental writing (DIEW). Journal of Educational
Psychology, 109, 35-50. doi:10.1037/edu0000129
Kintsch, W. (2004). The construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implica-
tions for Instruction. In R. Ruddell, & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes
of reading (5th ed., pp. 1270-1328). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
doi:10.1598/0872075028.46
Kress, G. (1994). Learning to write (2nd ed.). London, England: Routledge. (Original work
published 1982)
334 Journal of Literacy Research 51(3)

Lee, E., Torrance, N. G., & Olson, D. (2001). Young children and the say/mean distinction:
Verbatim and paraphrase recognition in narrative and nursery rhyme contexts. Journal of
Child Language, 28, 531-543.
Leitão, S. (2003). Evaluating and selecting counterarguments: Studies of children’s rhetorical
awareness. Written Communication, 20, 269-306.
MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of writing research.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Maggio, S., Lété, B., Chenu, F., Jisa, H., & Fayol, M. (2012). Tracking the mind during writ-
ing: Immediacy, delayed, and anticipatory effects on pauses and writing rate. Reading and
Writing, 25, 2131-2151. doi:10.1007/s11145-011-9348-1
Mann, W., & Thompson, S. (1987). Rhetorical Structure Theory: A theory of text organization
(No. ISI/RS-87-190). Marina del Rey, CA: Information Sciences Institute.
McCutchen, D. (2006). Cognitive factors in the development of children’s writing. In C.
MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 115-
130). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The nation’s report card: Writing 2011 (NCES
2012–470). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
National Commission on Writing for America’s Families, Schools, and Colleges. (2003).
The neglected R: The need for a writing revolution. New York, NY: College Entrance
Examination Board. Retrieved from https://www.nwp.org/cs/public/download/nwp_file
/21478/the-neglected-r-college-board-nwp-report.pdf?x-r=pcfile_d
O’Hallaron, C. L. (2014). Supporting fifth-grade ELLs’ argumentative writing development.
Written Communication, 31, 304-331.
Olinghouse, N. G. (2008). Student- and instruction-level predictors of narrative writing in third-
grade students. Reading and Writing, 21, 3-26.
Olinghouse, N. G., & Wilson, J. (2013). The relationship between vocabulary and writing
quality in three genres. Reading and Writing, 26, 45-65. doi:10.1007/s11145-012-9392-5
Olive, T., Alves, R. A., & Castro, S. L. (2009). Cognitive processes in writing during pause
and execution periods. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21, 758-785. doi:10
.1080/09541440802079850
Puranik, C. S., & Al Otaiba, S. (2012). Examining the contribution of handwriting and spell-
ing to written expression in kindergarten children. Reading and Writing, 25, 1523-1546.
doi:10.1007/s11145-011-9331-x
Purcell-Gates, V. (1988). Lexical and syntactic knowledge of written narrative held by well-read-
to kindergartners and second graders. Research in the Teaching of English, 22, 128-160.
Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. C. (1990). Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices
and Vocabulary Scales—Section 2: Coloured progressive matrices. Oxford, UK: Oxford
Psychologists Press.
Ravid, D., & Shalom, T. (2012). Standards of evaluation of writing in the seventh grade.
Jerusalem, Israel: Keren Yad Hanadiv. (In Hebrew)
Ravid, D., & Tolchinsky, L. (2002). Developing linguistic literacy: A comprehensive model.
Journal of Child Language, 29, 417-447. doi:10.1017/S0305000902005111
Reilly, J. S., Zamora, A., & McGivern, R. F. (2005). Acquiring perspective in English: The devel-
opment of stance. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 185-208. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2004.08.010
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Seroussi, B. (2011). The Lester & Sally Entin Faculty of Humanities The Shirley & Leslie Porter
School of Cultural Studies (Doctoral dissertation). Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Stavans et al. 335

Shanahan, T., & Lomax, R. G. (1986). An analysis and comparison of theoretical models
of the reading–writing relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 116-123.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.78.2.116
Shanahan, T., MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (2006). Relations among oral lan-
guage, reading, and writing development. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald
(Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 171-183). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Shany, M., Bahat, A., Lachman, D., Shalem, Z., & Zeiger, T. (2006). “Aleph-Taph”: An assess-
ment system for reading and writing disabilities. Tel Aviv, Israel: Yesod.
Stavans, A. (2015a). If you know Amharic you can read this: Emergent literacy in multilingual
pre-reading children. In G. D. Angelis, U. Jessner, & M. Kresić (Eds.), Crosslinguistic
influence and crosslinguistic interaction in multilingual language learning (pp. 149-172).
London, England: Bloomsbury Academic.
Stavans, A. (2015b). Monolingual and multilingual discrimination of written sequences’ read-
ability. Writing Systems Research, 7, 108-127.
Stavans, A., Seroussi, B., Rigbi, A., & Zadunaisky-Ehrlich, S. (in press). The relative contribu-
tion of cognitive, linguistic and reading abilities to the writing quality of expository text
structure in young Hebrew speaking school children. In R. Alves, T. Limpo, & M. Joshi
(Eds.), Reading-writing connections. Springer.
Swanson, H. L., & Berninger, V. W. (1996). Individual differences in children’s working mem-
ory and writing skill. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 358-385. doi:10.1006/
jecp.1996.0054
Teubal, E., Dockrell, J., & Tolchinsky, L. (2007). Notational knowledge: Developmental and
historical perspectives. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Tolchinsky, L. (2016). From text to language and back: The emergence of written language. In
C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd
ed., pp. 144-159). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Tolchinsky, L., Johansson, V., & Zamora, A. (2002). Text openings and closings in writing
and speech: Autonomy and differentiation. Written Language & Literacy, 5, 219-253.
doi:10.1075/wll.5.2.05tol
Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tower, C. (2003). Genre development and elementary students’ informational writing: A review
of the literature. Literacy Research and Instruction, 42, 14-39.
van Dijk, T. A. (1980). Macrostructures: An interdisciplinary study of global structures in dis-
course, interaction, and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Voss, J. F., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2001). Argumentation in psychology: Background comments.
Discourse Processes, 32, 89-111. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2001.9651593
Wagner, R., Puranik, C., Foorman, B., Foster, E., Tschinkel, E., & Kantor, P. (2011). Modeling
the development of written language. Reading and Writing, 24, 203-220. doi:10.1007/
s11145-010-9266-7
Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Yochum, N. (1991). Children’s learning from informational text: The relationship between
prior knowledge and text structure. Journal of Literacy Research, 23, 87-108. doi:10
.1080/10862969109547728

Manuscript submitted: 11 December 2018

Manuscript accepted: 3 May 2019
Article published online: 18 July 2019