Content uploaded by Lei Sun
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lei Sun on Jun 03, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
100
Unless otherwise noted, the publisher, which is the American Speech-Language-
Hearing Association (ASHA), holds the copyright on all materials published in
Perspectives on Language Learning and Education, both as a compilation and as
individual articles. Please see Rights and Permissions for terms and conditions of
use of Perspectives content: http://journals.asha.org/perspectives/terms.dtl
Expository Writing in Children and Adolescents: A
Classroom Assessment Tool
Marilyn A. Nippold
University of Oregon
Eugene, OR
Lei Sun
Los Angeles Unified School District
Los Angeles, CA
Abstract
This article describes a study that examined the development of expository writing in
children and adolescents, using a task that could easily be administered by the speech-
language pathologist to students in their classrooms at school. The task is presented and
methods for analyzing and interpreting the results using a computer program are
described. Excerpts from essays that were written by children and adolescents with
typical development are discussed.
Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) who work with children and adolescents in the
schools frequently conduct evaluations to identify students with language disorders, qualify
them for speech-language services, and plan interventions. Although norm-referenced
standardized tests such as the Test of Language Development: Primary–Fourth Edition
(TOLD:P-4; Newcomer & Hammill, 2008), the Test of Language Development: Intermediate –
Fourth Edition (TOLD:I-4; Hammill & Newcomer, 2008), and the Clinical Evaluation of
Language Fundamentals–Fourth Edition (CELF-4; Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2003) can be helpful
in this process, they do not provide detailed information about how a child or adolescent
actually uses language to communicate in natural settings such as the classroom. To obtain
this type of data, it is necessary to collect and analyze spoken and written language samples
(Nippold, 2010b).
The profession of speech-language pathology has a strong tradition of using language
samples to gain information about language development (Heilmann, Miller, & Nockerts, 2010;
Nippold, 2010b). Fortunately, normative databases are available for children and adolescents
speaking in conversational, narrative, and expository genres (Miller, 2009; Miller & Iglesias,
2008). In contrast to spoken language, however, less information is available on written
language. Because written language is critical for school success, it is important to establish
normative databases in this modality. Expository discourse, the use of language to convey
information, is particularly worthy of attention because it is the predominant genre used in the
classroom beginning in fourth grade and continuing through high school (Nippold & Scott,
2010). During these years, students are expected to use expository discourse when writing
term papers, essays, and reports that focus on complex topics in disciplines such as biology,
economics, history, and social studies. Success with expository discourse requires, among
many things, a more sophisticated level of syntactic development than do other genres, a
research finding that has been replicated across many languages (Berman & Verhoeven, 2002;
101
Heilmann et al., 2010; Nippold, 2009; Nippold, Hesketh, Duthie, & Mansfield, 2005; Nippold,
Mansfield, Billow, & Tomblin, 2008, 2009; Scott & Windsor, 2000; Verhoeven et al., 2002).
However, students with language disorders frequently exhibit syntactic deficits in expository
discourse (Nippold et al., 2008, 2009; Scott & Windsor, 2002). This suggests that syntactic
development in expository writing should be evaluated.
Thus, the present study was designed to begin to establish a normative database in
expository writing for children and adolescents. An essay task was employed that could be
administered easily to students in their classrooms at school. To simplify the process of
analyzing the essays, we elected to use the computer program, Systematic Analysis of
Language Transcripts (SALT; Miller & Iglesias, 2008), because once an essay has been entered
into SALT, the program automatically calculates and reports numerous variables. One key
variable is mean length of T-unit (MLTU), a measure of syntactic development. A T-unit, similar
to an utterance, consists of one main clause and any subordinate clauses that are attached to
it (Hunt, 1970). The sentence “Friendship is a relationship between people who spend time
together” is a T-unit that contains one main clause (Friendship is a relationship between
people) and one subordinate clause (who spend time together). Studies have shown that MLTU
gradually increases during childhood, adolescence, and into adulthood (Berman & Verhoeven,
2002; Hunt, 1970; Loban, 1976; Nippold et al., 2005). Other key variables reported by SALT
include total words (TW) and total T-units (TTU) produced. Because language productivity as
measured by TW and TTU partially may reflect a student’s knowledge of the topic (Nippold,
2010b), these variables, which can be obtained quickly and easily, are important to examine as
well.
The essay task focused on friendship. This topic was chosen because peer relationships
gradually become more important to young people as they make the transition from childhood
to adulthood (Santrock, 1996; Schickedanz, Schickedanz, Forsyth, & Forsyth, 2001). Given
that children and adolescents are more likely to use complex language when discussing
subjects that interest them and about which they are knowledgeable (Nippold, 2009, 2010a), it
was thought that the topic of friendship might elicit strong expository writing from the
participants in the study. It also was thought that the task might reveal differences in syntactic
development and in language productivity. Thus, we compared children (fifth graders) to
adolescents (eighth graders) on the basis of MLTU, TW, and TTU. Research also has shown that
during the years between late childhood and early adolescence, girls spend more time
socializing with friends than do boys (Raffaelli & Duckett, 1989). For this reason, it also was
important to examine the possibility of a gender difference to determine if the task was more
appropriate for girls than for boys.
In sum, the present study posed these questions:
1. Would adolescents outperform children on an expository writing task in terms of
a. Syntactic development?
b. Language productivity?
2. Would boys and girls at both grade levels differ in their performance on the task?
Methods
The participants included 40 fifth-grade children (23 boys; 17 girls) and 40 eighth-grade
adolescents (20 boys; 20 girls) who were attending public schools in a rural town in western
Oregon, populated by middle- to lower-income families. The fifth graders (mean age=11;1,
range=10;5-11;8) attended an elementary school that fed into the middle school that the eighth
graders (mean age=14;1, range=13;4-14;10) attended. According to teacher report, all
participants were considered to be typical achievers who spoke Standard American English as
their primary language. None were receiving special education services at the time of the study.
102
The students were asked to write an expository essay on the topic of friendship. The
task was administered in large-group fashion in their classrooms at school during language
arts or English. The investigators provided each student with a booklet that contained a set of
written instructions and a 7-point outline, shown in Figure 1, and four pages of lined paper for
writing the essay. The outline prompted the students to address a number of key issues
concerning the nature of friendship and helped them to organize their thoughts. Before the
students began writing, one investigator read the instructions and outline aloud to the class
while the other investigator walked around the classroom to ensure that all students were
following along. Students were allowed 20 minutes to complete their work. After time was
called, their booklets were collected.
Figure 1. Expository Writing Task: “The Nature of Friendship” (Nippold, 2010b, p. 48)
Each student’s hand-written essay was typed verbatim, segmented into T-units, and
entered into SALT (Miller & Iglesias, 2008) by one of the investigators. The other investigator or
a research assistant double-checked each essay. Any discrepancies in content or segmenting
were discussed and resolved. Very few discrepancies occurred. The following dependent
variables, reported by SALT, were recorded for each participant: MLTU, TW, and TTU.
Results
103
Table 1. Performance of the groups on the expository writing task (n=40 per group).
Fifth Grade Eighth Grade
Boys Girls All Boys Girls All
Mean Length of T-Unit (MLTU)
Mean 11.76 13.11 12.33 15.09 13.97 14.53
SD 2.95 2.97 3 3.51 2.65 3.13
Range 5.80-17.60 7.74-17.67 5.80-17.67 8.94-24.50 7.39-18.08 7.39-24.50
Total Words (TW)
Mean 112.43 176.29 139.58 181.75 235.05 208.40
SD 39.08 65.38 60.31 70.41 50.10 66.08
Range 29-178 89-346 29-346 48-339 133-321 48-339
Total T-Units (TTU)
Mean 9.61 14.12 11.53 13.10 17.25 15.18
SD 2.78 6.2 5.02 7.77 4.18 6.5
Range 5-16 7-31 5-31 3-33 11-25 3-33
Table 1 reports the mean raw scores, standards deviations, and ranges obtained on the
expository writing task. The data were analyzed using a 2 (grade) x 2 (gender) analysis of
variance (ANOVA) for each dependent variable. Effect sizes were computed using the eta (η)
coefficient (Meline & Schmitt, 1997), and based on Cohen’s (1969, p. 276) recommendation,
they were interpreted as small (η=.10-.23), medium (η=.24-.36), or large (η=.37-.71).
For mean length of T-unit (MLTU), a statistically significant main effect was obtained for
grade [F (1, 76)=10.43, p=.0018, η=.35] but not for gender [F (1, 76)=.15, p=.6996, η=.04]. The
effect size for grade was medium. For total words (TW), statistically significant main effects
were obtained for grade [F (1, 76)=29.52, p<.0001, η=.53] and gender [F (1, 76)=24.89,
p<.0001, η=.50], and both effect sizes were large. Similarly, for total T-units (TTU), statistically
significant main effects were obtained for grade [F (1, 76)=8.95, p=.0037, η=.32] and gender [F
(1, 76)=14.00, p=.0004, η=.39]; the effect sizes were medium and large, respectively. No
interactions between grade and gender were statistically significant: MLTU [F (1, 76)=3.13,
p=.0807, η=.20]; TW [F (1, 76)=0, p=1, η=0]; TTU [F (1, 76)=0, p=1, η=0]. Thus, the eighth
graders outperformed the fifth graders on syntactic development (MLTU) and language
productivity (TW, TTU). Moreover, at both grades, girls outperformed boys on language
productivity (TU, TTU) but not on syntactic development (MLTU).
Discussion
The purpose of the study was to begin the process of establishing a normative database
for expository writing in children and adolescents. The task, an essay on the nature of
friendship, successfully elicited expository writing in fifth grade children and eighth grade
adolescents, revealing developmental gains in syntax and language production, with the
adolescents producing longer T-units and a greater number of words and T-units than the
children. At both grades, however, girls wrote significantly more than boys, perhaps reflecting
differences between the sexes in topic knowledge, interest, and/or motivation. This suggests
that separate sets of normative data for boys and girls should be established for this particular
writing task.
104
It is interesting to consider how sentences change in relation to age. Prior
developmental research has established that during childhood, adolescence, and into
adulthood, people gradually produce a greater number of subordinate clauses, resulting in
longer, denser, and more informative sentences (Nippold, 2007). This pattern can be illustrated
by comparing sentences that were produced by participants in the study who were addressing
the same points in their essays. Consider the excerpts shown in Figure 2. Writer #1, a fifth
grade girl and Writer #2, an eighth grade girl, were addressing Questions 1 and 2 (What is
friendship? Why is it important to people?). Writer #1 produced 3 T-units and 4 subordinate
clauses, whereas Writer #2 produced 6 T-units and 10 subordinate clauses, evidencing greater
productivity and syntactic complexity. Similar patterns can be seen by comparing Writer #3, a
fifth grade boy, to Writer #4, an eighth grade boy, who were addressing Questions 6 and 7
(“What kinds of actions can damage friendships? How can people remain good friends over
time?). Writer #3 produced only 2 T-units and 4 subordinate clauses, whereas Writer #4
produced 6 T-units and 9 subordinate clauses. Additionally, the two older writers were more
likely to embed subordinate clauses within other subordinate clauses, a phenomenon called
hierarchical complexity (Nippold, 2010b). For example, Writer #2’s most complex T-unit
contained 4 subordinate clauses, 2 of which (that you trust, can count on) were embedded
within the first (when there is someone); moreover, the fourth subordinate clause (whenever
you need them) in that T-unit was embedded within the third (can count on) subordinate
clause, creating multiple layers of complexity. Similarly, Writer #4’s most complex T-unit
contained 3 subordinate clauses, 2 of which (that you know, they won’t like) were embedded
within the first (if you intentionally do something). In these examples, the two older writers (#2
and #4) also seemed to express a greater understanding of the topic of friendship than the two
younger ones (#1 and #3), a pattern that can be expected to emerge in view of research in
socio-emotional development (Santrock, 1996; Schickedanz et al., 2001). A question for future
research would be to determine to what extent these age-related gains in expository writing
reflect growth in topic knowledge, for research (Nippold, 2009) has shown that when students
are discussing complicated topics about which they are knowledgeable, their language use is
more sophisticated than when they are discussing simpler, more familiar topics.
105
Figure 2. Excerpts from essays on friendship written by fifth and eighth grade students in the present study
(subordinate clauses have been highlighted with underlining)
Given the positive findings of this study, it is reasonable to propose that the task be
used as a classroom assessment tool. To obtain local normative data, SLPs and classroom
teachers in elementary and middle schools could work together to administer the task to
typical students (both boys and girls) at various grade levels in their district. The handwritten
essays could be typed, segmented into T-units, and entered into SALT (perhaps with the
assistance of university students majoring in communication sciences and disorders) and
examined for MLTU, TW, and TTU—variables that provide valuable information that is quickly
and easily obtained. Then, the results for each variable (means, standard deviations, and
ranges) could serve as a useful reference point for comparing students who struggle with
expository writing because of a language disorder. Once a student with a language disorder has
completed the task, the SLP could evaluate the essay by entering it into SALT, and examining it
for these variables, noting how far below the mean for the student’s grade and gender he or she
falls. It also may be useful to examine the essay informally for content, clarity, and topic
knowledge. Based on these formal and informal analyses, the SLP will have a clear
106
understanding of the student’s strengths and weaknesses in expository writing, and be able to
plan appropriate, individualized treatment with confidence.
Marilyn A. Nippold, PhD, is a professor and ASHA Fellow in the Communication Disorders
and Sciences Program at the University of Oregon in Eugene, Oregon. Her research and clinical
interests focus on School-age and adolescent language development and disorders.
Lei Sun, PhD, is a speech-language pathologist in Los Angeles Unified School District Los
Angeles, California. She specializes in school-age and adolescent language development and
disorders.
References
Berman, R. A., & Verhoeven, L. (2002). Cross-linguistic perspectives on the development of text-
production abilities: Speech and writing. Written Language and Literacy, 5(1), 1-43.
Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Hammill, D. D., & Newcomer, P. L. (2008). Test of Language Development: Intermediate (4
th
ed.). Austin,
TX: PRO-ED.
Heilmann, J. J., Miller, J. F., & Nockerts, A. (2010). Using language sample databases. Language, Speech,
and Hearing Services in Schools, 41, 84-95.
Hunt, K. W. (1970). Syntactic maturity in school children and adults. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, 35(1), 1-67.
Loban, W. (1976). Language development: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Urbana, IL: National
Council of Teachers of English.
Meline, T., & Schmitt, J. F. (1997). Case studies for evaluating statistical significance in group designs.
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 6, 33-41.
Miller, J. F. (2009). New database: Helps identify, monitor older students. Advance for Speech-Language
Pathologists & Audiologists, 19(8), 4-7.
Miller, J. F., & Iglesias, A. (2008). Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT), English & Spanish
(Version 9) [Computer software]. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Waisman Center,
Language Analysis Laboratory. http://www.languageanalysislab.com/
Newcomer, P. L., & Hammill, D. D. (2008). Test of language development: Primary (4th ed.). Austin, TX:
PRO-ED.
Nippold, M. A. (2007). Later language development: School-age children, adolescents, and young adults
(3rd Ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Nippold, M. A. (2009). School-age children talk about chess: Does knowledge drive syntactic complexity?
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 856-871.
Nippold, M. A. (2010a). Explaining complex matters: How knowledge of a domain drives language. In M.
A. Nippold & C. M. Scott (Eds.), Expository discourse in children, adolescents, and adults: Development
and disorders (pp. 41-61). New York, NY: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.
Nippold, M. A. (2010b). Language sampling with adolescents. San Diego, CA: Plural.
Nippold, M. A., Hesketh, L. J., Duthie, J. K., & Mansfield, T. C. (2005). Conversational versus expository
discourse: A study of syntactic development in children, adolescents, and adults. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 1048-1064.
Nippold, M. A., Mansfield, T. C., Billow, J. L., & Tomblin, J. B. (2008). Expository discourse in adolescents
with language impairments: Examining syntactic development. American Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology, 17, 356-366.
Nippold, M. A., Mansfield, T. C., Billow, J. L., & Tomblin, J. B. (2009). Syntactic development in
adolescents with a history of language impairments: A follow-up investigation. American Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology, 18, 241-251.
107
Nippold, M. A., & Scott, C. M. (2010). Overview of expository discourse: Development and disorders. In M.
A. Nippold & C. M. Scott (Eds.), Expository discourse in children, adolescents, and adults: Development
and disorders (pp. 1-11). New York, NY: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.
Raffaelli, M., & Duckett, E. (1989). “We were just talking…”: Conversations in early adolescence. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 18, 567-582.
Santrock, J. W. (1996). Adolescence: An introduction (6th Ed.). Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.
Schickedanz, J. A., Schickedanz, D. I., Forsyth, P. D., & Forsyth, G. A. (2001). Understanding children
and adolescents (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Scott, C. M., & Windsor, J. (2000). General language performance measures in spoken and written
narrative and expository discourse in school-age children with language learning disabilities. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 324-339.
Semel, E., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. A. (2003). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals (4
th
ed.). San
Antonio, TX: Pearson.
Verhoeven, L., Aparici, M., Cahana-Amitay, D., van Hell, J., Kriz, S., & Viguie-Simon, A. (2002). Clause
packaging in writing and speech: A cross-linguistic developmental analysis. Written Language and
Literacy, 5(2), 135-162.
