Explore the vast range of titles available.

This study explored the concurrent and longitudinal relationships between reading and writing in young Chinese-as-a-second-language (CSL) learners’ sentence writing, using structural equation modeling. The participants comprised 126 Hong Kong senior primary ethnic minority students, whose literacy skills were assessed at two time points over the course of a year. In grade 5 (Time-1), they were assessed with Chinese character reading and reading comprehension measures to evaluate their reading ability. In grade 6 (Time-2), their sentence reading, sentence writing, and literacy component skills of Chinese character writing fluency and written syntactic skills were assessed. The results demonstrated that students’ reading and writing performances were substantially related both concurrently and longitudinally. Furthermore, (1) at Time-2, the component skills accounted for substantial portions of variance in sentence reading and writing skills, along with the relationship between them, while (2) Time-1 reading ability predicted Time-2 component skills and, through the mediation thereof, indirectly predicted sentence writing. Thus, in light of the linguistic characteristics of the Chinese language, literacy component skills are crucial component processes that connect reading and writing in CSL learners’ sentence writing.

Science has greatly enhanced what we know about reading and writing. Drawing on this knowledge, researchers have proffered recommendations for how to teach these two literacy skills. Although such recommendations are aimed at closing the gap between research and practice, they often fail to take into account the reciprocal relation that exists between reading and writing. Writing and writing instruction improve students’ reading and vice versa. Theory and evidence that support this reciprocal relation are presented, and implications for the scientific study of reading and writing, policy, and practice are offered, including the proposal that the sciences of reading and writing need to be better integrated.

The present study aimed to examine the relationships between reading and writing, and the role of L2 proficiency in moderating these relationships, among 8th and 11th graders in South Korea. A total of 257 eighth and 322 eleventh graders learning English as a foreign language participated in Study 1 and Study 2, respectively. The findings indicated that (1) reading and writing have a two‐way relationship regardless of grade levels, (2) a two‐way relationship between reading and writing exists not only within L2 but also across L1 and L2 (L1 reading → L2 writing, L1 writing → L2 reading), and (3) the strength of the relationship between reading and writing is moderated by the level of L2 proficiency. The authors discuss these results in terms of current research on reading–writing relationships and provide implications for pedagogy and future research. The Challenge The relationship between reading and writing in L2 and across L1 and L2 has become an important research issue due to the spread of social network services and the increasing importance of literacy as a core element in academic and social success. What are the relationships between reading and writing in L2 as well as across L1 and L2 for different grade levels? Do the relationships between reading and writing vary as a function of L2 proficiency for different grade levels? This article presents how these constructs are related in an English as a foreign language context.

Theories of writing development posit several component skills as necessary to the writing process. This meta-analysis synthesizes the literature on the correlation between these proposed component skills and writing outcomes. Specifically, in this study, we examine the bivariate relationships between handwriting fluency, spelling, reading, and oral language and students' quality of writing and writing production. Additionally, the extent to which such relationships are moderated by student grade level and type of learner is also investigated. The findings document that each of the component skills demonstrates a weak to moderate positive relationship to outcomes assessing writing quality (rs = .33–.49) and the amount students write (rs = .20–.48). Moderator analyses were generally not significant with the exception that the relationship between reading and writing production was significantly higher for students in the primary grades. The implications of these findings to current theories and future research are discussed.

This article investigates the relationship between reading and writing. We assume that these skills share a number of subskills as can be inferred from models of reading and writing. A set of these subskills are studied for the extent to which they can explain the common variance (correlation) between reading and writing. Data from a sample of Dutch students performing reading and writing tasks in Dutch and English as a foreign language, as well as tests for various Dutch and English subskills, both declarative knowledge and processing fluency, were analyzed using structural equation modeling to estimate residual correlations between reading and writing, controlling for subskills. Results show that declarative linguistic knowledge is a more likely source for the common variance between reading and writing than processing fluency, and the subskills seem to play a larger role in EFL reading and writing than in L1 reading and writing. However, the EFL patterns seem to develop in the direction of the L1 results in the course of three grades.

Although writing instruction can positively impact reading for students across grades and levels of literacy, the extent to which these findings generalize to young students with literacy difficulties is unclear due to the dynamic nature of reading-writing relations. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to examine the effects of writing instruction on the reading outcomes of students in grades pre-K–5 who have reading, writing, or co-occurring reading and writing difficulties. Across 19 studies and 72 effects, writing instruction had a positive effect on reading outcomes in English ( g  = 0.27, 95% CI [0.13, 0.41], p  < .01). Descriptively different subset effects for higher-intensity instruction (small student group, greater total hours) could not be reliably estimated. Effects were moderated by the focus of instruction, with transcription instruction associated with larger effects. Percentage of instructional time spent writing and type of comparison condition (reading treatment or control) did not moderate effects. Implications for the design of early writing interventions are discussed.

We investigated developmental trajectories of and the relation between reading and writing (word reading, reading comprehension, spelling, and written composition), using longitudinal data from students in Grades 3–6 in the US. Results revealed that word reading and spelling were best described as having linear growth trajectories whereas reading comprehension and written composition showed nonlinear growth trajectories with a quadratic function during the examined developmental period. Word reading and spelling were consistently strongly related (.73 ≤ rs ≤ .80) whereas reading comprehension and written composition were weakly related (.21 ≤ rs ≤ .37). Initial status and linear slope were negatively and moderately related for word reading (− .44) whereas they were strongly and positively related for spelling (.73). Initial status of word reading predicted initial status and growth rate of spelling; and growth rate of word reading predicted growth rate of spelling. In contrast, spelling did not predict word reading. When it comes to reading comprehension and writing, initial status of reading comprehension predicted initial status (.69), but not linear growth rate, of written comprehension. These results indicate that reading–writing relations are stronger at the lexical level than at the discourse level and may be a unidirectional one from reading to writing at least between Grades 3 and 6. Results are discussed in light of the interactive dynamic literacy model of reading–writing relations, and component skills of reading and writing development.

This study examined the development of beginning writing skills in kindergarten and the relationship between early writing skills and early reading skills. Sixty children were assessed on beginning writing skills (including letter writing, individual sound spelling, and real and nonsense word spelling) and beginning reading skills (including letter name and letter sound knowledge, global early reading ability, phonological awareness, and word reading). Children’s beginning writing abilities are described, and they exhibited a range of proficiency in their ability to write letters, spell sounds, and spell real and nonsense words. Global early reading proficiency, phonological awareness, and/or letter sound fluency predicted letter writing, sound spelling, and spelling of real and nonsense words.

Preschool children often confuse letters with their mirror images when they try to read and write. Mirror confusion seems to occur more often in line with the direction of script (e.g., left-to-right for the Latin alphabetic script), suggesting that the processing of letter orientation and text directionality may be interrelated in preliterate age. When children go to school, mirror mistakes in writing/reading letters disappear. Here we ask whether the processing of letter shapes and text direction are still related in readers at different proficiency levels. Literate subjects – school children from the 1st and 4th grades and adults – decided under time pressure whether a displayed letter was oriented correctly or incorrectly (mirrored). We observed that reaction times were faster when a letter was oriented rightward, i.e. in line with the cultural text direction (left-to-right), but we did not find any differences between the groups. We conclude that, even if mirror mistakes disappear during primary school years, letter shapes are still processed in a close relation to the left-to-right reading direction in the Latin script.

There is significant overlap between reading and writing, but no known standardized measure assesses these jointly. The goal of the present study is to evaluate the properties of a novel measure, the Assessment of Writing, Self-Monitoring, and Reading (AWSM Reader), that simultaneously evaluates both reading comprehension and writing. In doing so, we evaluate reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) and various aspects of construct-related validity, including separate criterion measures of reading and writing, and the AWSM Reader’s relations with other variables, including language and executive function (EF), both of which are implicated for both reading and writing. Participants were 377 3rd, 4th, and 5th graders with or at-risk for reading and writing difficulties. Reliability was low for the AWSM Reader reading comprehension (α = 0.58), but good for writing (α = 0.75-0.80). Criterion-related validity indices revealed moderate correlations with other standardized and commonly used reading and writing measures, r = .47 to 0.50 (all ps < 0.001). Additionally, validity data supported the relations of both language and EF to AWSM Reader reading and writing, with EF showing unique prediction in both reading and writing domains. Results provide initial support for the measure per se but stress the difficulty in constructing combined reading and writing measures; directions are given for future work. Results also add to data on the contributions of language and EF to both reading and writing.