Access to this full-text is provided by Wiley.
Content available from British Educational Research Journal
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
444
|
Br Educ Res J. 2025;51:444–465.
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/berj
Received: 21 February 2024
|
Accepted: 9 September 2024
DOI: 10.1002/berj.4072
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The role of visual perception and executive
functions on writing skills with learning
disabilities: The case of Turkish- speaking
children
Kumaş Özlem Altindağ1 | Dodur Halime Miray Sümer2
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution
and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is proper ly cited.
© 2024 The Author(s). British Educational Research Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British
Educational Research Association.
1Special Education Department, Dicle
University, Sur, Diyarbakır, Turkey
2Social Work Department, Çankırı Karatekin
University, Çankırı, Turkey
Correspondence
Kumaş Özlem Altindağ, Special Education
Department, Dicle University Ziya Gökalp
Education Faculty, Sur, Diyarbakır, Turkey.
Email: ozlemmaltindag@gmail.com
Abstract
This study examined the effects of visual perception
and executive function skills on the writing skills of
Turkish students with learning disabilities and typi-
cally developing Turkish students. Given the unique
features of the Turkish language, such as vowel har-
mony and articulatory structure, this research ad-
dresses a significant gap in understanding how these
factors influence writing abilities in this population.
The study employed a comparative design involv-
ing students with learning disabilities and typically
developing students and analysed their writing er-
rors, executive function and visual perception levels.
Significant differences were found between the two
groups, with students with learning disabilities per-
forming worse across all the measures. Correlation
analysis indicated significant relationships between
writing errors and visual perception, working mem-
ory and executive functioning. Multiple regression
analysis further revealed that these cognitive factors
were crucial predictors of writing skills. These find-
ings underscore the importance of considering visual
perception and executive functions when formulating
and implementing writing instruction strategies for
Turkish students with learning disabilities.
KEYWORDS
executive functions, learning disabilities, Turkish language
structure, visual perception, writing skills
|
445
THE CASE OF TURKISH- SPEAKING CHILDREN
INTRODUCTION
Writing, in conjunction with speaking, is a fundamental component of communication. A
systematic approach to the development of writing skills is crucial for enhancing other
language- related abilities. Writing development is a lifelong process and an important
life skill (Cormier et al., 2016; Cuenca- Sanchez et al., 2012; Dragomir & Niculescu, 2020;
Graham & Harris, 1997; OECD, 2021; Sheronovna, 2022). The main models of writing de-
velopment emphasise the interaction between cognitive processes and physical compo-
nents of writing. In this context, Flower and Hayes’ (1981) cognitive process model suggests
that the writing process consists of three main components: planning, text production and
revision. This model states that the writing process is dynamic and recursive and that writ-
ers constantly refer to information in this process. On the other hand, Scardamalia and
Bereiter's (1987) knowledge expression and knowledge transformation models suggest that
the writing process can be considered in two separate processes: knowledge expression
and knowledge transformation. These models suggest that in knowledge expression, writers
rephrase existing knowledge, whereas in knowledge transformation, they combine existing
knowledge with new knowledge to create meaningful texts. Kellogg's (1996) cognitive model
emphasises the role of working memory in the writing process. According to this model,
the management of the cognitive load during the writing process directly affects writing
performance. Finally, Berninger and Winn's (2006) developmental model states that writing
development is shaped by the interactions of biological, environmental, physical and social
factors. This model emphasises the importance of individual differences and various de-
velopmental processes by adopting a child- centred approach to the development of writing
skills. These basic writing models help us understand the complexity of the writing process
and how its various components interact with each other.
Given this critical importance, successful writing skills have a significant impact on
overall academic achievement (Hoover et al., 2012; Kuiken & Vedder, 2020; Rietdijk
et al., 2017). However, students with learning disabilities (LD) may face difficulties in de-
veloping their writing skills. These difficulties are particularly evident for these students
because of the complex nature of their written expressions (Walker et al., 2005). Writing
represents the most sophisticated and intricate aspect of mastering a language sys-
tem, encompassing three key components: penmanship, orthography and composition
(Bender, 2004; Berninger, Abbott, Jones, et al., 2006). Penmanship refers to the physical
act of writing, encompassing the formation of letters and the overall handwriting quality. It
Key insights
What is the main issue that the paper addresses?
This paper examines the impact of visual perception and executive function skills on
the writing abilities of Turkish- speaking students with learning disabilities.
What are the main insights that the paper provides?
The study reveals that weaknesses in visual perception and executive functions sig-
nificantly hinder writing skills in students with learning disabilities. It highlights the
necessity of targeted educational strategies to support these cognitive areas in im-
proving writing outcomes.
446
|
ALT I N DAĞ and SÜMER
plays a fundamental role in communication, as legible handwriting enhances the readabil-
ity and comprehension of written texts. Orthography, on the other hand, pertains to correct
spelling and the use of writing conventions within a language. This involves understanding
the rules and patterns governing the formation of words, including grammar, punctuation
and syntax. Proficiency in orthography is essential for effective written communication
because errors in spelling and grammar can impede the clarity and coherence of a text.
Composition is the third component of writing mastery and involves the organisation and
expression of ideas in written form. It encompasses the ability to cohesively structure sen-
tences and paragraphs, develop coherent arguments and convey information effectively.
Strong composition skills are vital for producing engaging and persuasive written works
across various genres and formats. Handwriting is an essential communication tool that
students use to express and record information and ideas and is the first stage of the writ-
ing process (Mackenzie & Spokes, 2018). Legibility is related to the visual characteristics
of the written product, such as appropriately writing letters in the appropriate size and
proportion, leaving appropriate spaces between letters and words, and following a line
(Spier & Pytleski, 2022). Handwriting fluency involves writing letters and words without
error (Berninger et al., 2008; Olive et al., 2009). Handwriting requires the correct percep-
tion of sound symbols, visual and motor coordination, hand–eye coordination and the
ability to retain letters and words in visual and kinesthetic memory (Berninger et al., 2008;
Gilboa et al., 2010). Students with learning disabilities have difficulty writing fluent and
legible handwriting because they lack these skills (Berninger et al., 2009). Additionally, it
has been noted that high- level cognitive skills are associated with various dimensions of
writing such as writing quality, productivity and accuracy (Kim & Graham, 2022), and the
cognitive characteristics of the writer, along with their individual differences, influence the
writing process (Graham, 2018).
The development of handwriting and spelling skills is an important aspect of literacy ac-
quisition in children. Research has demonstrated a strong relationship between handwrit-
ing fluency and spelling accuracy (Yuan et al., 2020). Handwriting fluency, which includes
automaticity in transcription skills, becomes increasingly important as students progress
across grades and achieve higher spelling accuracy (Yeung et al., 2016). Research has
shown that handwriting skills, particularly fluency, improve with age and schooling, and
that individual differences in these skills predict children's writing proficiency (Semeraro
et al., 2019). Furthermore, the reciprocal relationship between handwriting and spelling
has emphasised that the cognitive skills required for handwriting overlap with spelling
skills, and that there is a mutually reinforcing link between handwriting fluency and spelling
accuracy (Yuan et al., 2020). The acquisition of good handwriting skills has been asso-
ciated with helping spelling and visual organisation, and the importance of handwriting
in developing spelling abilities has been emphasised (Doug, 2019; Harrison et al., 2009;
Wallen et al., 2013).
Spelling success depends on proficiency in orthographic decoding, phonological aware-
ness, phonological decoding, visual perception and executive function skills (Caravolas
et al., 2001; Friend & Olson, 2008). Owing to their inadequacies in these areas, students
with learning disabilities are not as successful in spelling skills as their peers with normal
development (Caravolas & Volín, 2001; Cassar et al., 2005). They perform letter- syllable
skipping, letter- syllable addition, letter- syllable substitution and reverse writing errors more
frequently than their peers with normal development (Caravolas & Volín, 2001). In addition,
the writing of students with learning disabilities is characterised by punctuation, capital-
isation, spelling and grammatical errors (García & Fidalgo, 2008; Graham & Harris, 2020).
The difficulties faced by students with LD in writing are often attributed to deficits in visual
perception and executive function skills (Borsting, 2006; Graham et al., 2021; Gray, 2022;
Lim, 2022).
|
447
THE CASE OF TURKISH- SPEAKING CHILDREN
Executive functions and writing difficulties
Executive functioning skills significantly impact writing skills (Graham et al., 2021; Lim, 2022;
Oddsdóttir et al., 2020). This refers to the capacity to focus and control thoughts during the
writing process, aiding tasks such as planning and revising the text (Kamran et al., 2023;
Re et al., 2023; Tarchi et al., 2021). That is, while writing, a person can maintain attention,
consciously focus on details and sustain the mental effort and attention required for the
writing task thanks to executive functioning skills. In this process, essential steps, such
as composing, revising and editing text, can be performed more effectively (Oddsdóttir
et al., 2020). Executive function skills strongly predict text quality (Cordeiro et al., 2020;
Salas & Silvente, 2020).
Deficits in executive functioning are associated with writing difficulties in individuals with
learning disabilities (Rodríguez et al., 2020; Tarchi et al., 2021). These deficits can nega-
tively affect students’ ability to organise their thoughts, develop written expressions and
complete writing tasks (Costa et al., 2018; Mulchay et al., 2021). Therefore, it is essential to
consider the effect of executive function when assessing and supporting students with LD
in their writing skills. Researchers have found that children with LD often have difficulties in
transcription skills, working memory and executive function, resulting in poor spelling and
overall writing quality (Hebert et al., 2018; Kamran et al., 2023; Re et al., 2023). Berninger
and Richards (2002) argue that executive function skills are essential for successful writing
and that difficulties in these skills may contribute to writing difficulties in individuals with
learning disabilities.
Visual perception and writing difficulties
Visual perception refers to the ability to interpret and make sense of the visual informa-
tion. It plays a crucial role in writing, as it involves tasks such as letter formation, spacing
and alignment (Grewal et al., 2014; Méary et al., 2005; Taverna et al., 2020; Torres, 2018).
Researchers have divided visual perception into subdomains to better understand its com-
ponents and processes (Borsting, 2006; Erhardt & Duckman, 2005). These subdomains
include eye–motor coordination, visual discrimination, visual shape–ground discrimination,
visual completion and spatial relations (Murai & Yotsumoto, 2016). These subdomains of
visual perception are necessary for processing, analysing and discriminating visual informa-
tion (Grewal et al., 2014; Méary et al., 2005). They contribute to the correct interpretation and
understanding of visual stimuli, which is crucial for tasks such as writing (Borsting, 2006;
Erhardt & Duckman, 2005). For example, eye–motor coordination helps control hand and
finger movements during letter formation. Visual discrimination helps distinguish between
different letters and shapes (Murai & Yotsumoto, 2016). Visual shape–ground discrimination
helps perceive letters as separate entities from the background. Visual completion enables
mental completion of missing letters or words. Spatial relations help maintain appropriate
spacing and alignment between letters and words (Grewal et al., 2014; Méary et al., 2005;
Taverna et al., 2020). It has also been found that visual perception is an important predic-
tor of reading and writing skills, and students who are successful in visual discrimination
are more successful in recognising letters and have higher overall academic achievement
(Gudwani et al., 2021; Mantovani et al., 2021; Ratzon et al., 2007; Sanghavi & Kelkar, 2005;
Vernet et al., 2022).
The coping skills of individuals with learning disabilities are often based on visual per-
ception difficulties. This can negatively affect the development of basic academic skills,
especially reading and writing (Borsting, 2006; Gray, 2022; Hoorn et al., 2013; Kurtz, 2006;
Swanson & Hsieh, 2009). Studies involving copying tasks provide an important resource for
448
|
ALT I N DAĞ and SÜMER
understanding the impact of visual perception on writing skills (Hoorn et al., 2013). It has
been reported that students with learning disabilities often have difficulty in letter recogni-
tion, distinguishing similar letters and words, size perception, shape–ground discrimination
and other visual perception skills (Lerner & Johns, 2014). Such skill deficits can occur even
in simple tasks such as copying and can often negatively affect the development of reading
and writing skills.
The existing literature has examined the effects of visual perception and executive func-
tions on writing skills in a wide range of languages, but most of these studies do not ade-
quately cover writing skills in languages with special language features such as Turkish.
The transparent orthography and articulatory structure of Turkish makes the development
of writing skills in this language different from other languages (Durgunoğlu & Öney, 1999;
Göksel & Kerslake, 2005). For example, studies in orthographically transparent languages
such as Spanish emphasise the effects of visual perception and executive functions on writ-
ing skills in such languages (De Jong et al., 2009; Jiménez et al., 2020). Similarly, studies
in languages such as Italian and Finnish have shown that the orthographic transparency of
these languages increases the importance of visual perception and executive functions in
the writing process (Holopainen et al., 2001; Tressoldi et al., 2001). However, there is a need
for more research on how these relationships work in languages such as Turkish, which has
both orthographic transparency and agglutinative language. In this context, it is of great im-
portance that the present study aims to fill this gap in the literature and examine the effects
of Turkey's unique language structure on writing skills in the context of visual perception and
executive functions. Such studies will make significant contributions to both national and in-
ternational literature and help better understand the educational needs of Turkish students.
In the literature, the effect of visual perception on writing skills has been examined in
detail, and it has been stated that the subcomponents in this area play a critical role in the
writing process (Grewal et al., 2014; Méary et al., 2005; Taverna et al., 2020; Torres, 2018).
However, research on how these components are affected in students with learning dis-
abilities and how this situation is reflected in their writing skills is limited (Borsting, 2006;
Erhardt & Duckman, 2005). For example, more information is needed on the specific effects
of subdomains, such as eye–motor coordination, visual discrimination, visual figure–ground
discrimination, visual completion and spatial relations, on writing performance (Murai &
Yotsumoto, 2016). In addition, the difficulties that deficiencies in these skills create in the
writing process and how these difficulties affect academic success have not been suffi-
ciently investigated (Lerner & Johns, 2014). In Turkey's current education system, especially
considering its unique language structure, more comprehensive studies need to be con-
ducted in this area. These deficiencies constitute the rationale for this study, which exam-
ines the effects of visual perception and executive function on the writing skills of Turkish
students and aims to better understand the needs of students with learning difficulties. This
study aims to provide a more in- depth understanding of the education system and student
needs in Turkey while contributing to international literature.
Current study
In this study, the role of visual perception and executive functions on the writing skills of
Turkish students with and without learning disabilities and the relationships between these
variables were examined. Turkish language structure has a significant effect on writing
skills with its features such as vowel harmony and agglutinative structure (Durgunoğlu &
Öney, 1999; Göksel & Kerslake, 2005). Turkish is an agglutinative (articulative) language
based on the Latin alphabet. This may require Turkish vocabulary structure and gram-
mar to be learned and used differently from other languages (Lewis, 2001). The impact of
|
449
THE CASE OF TURKISH- SPEAKING CHILDREN
the Turkish structure on writing skills is, therefore, different from that of other languages.
Turkish writing is transparent in that it is written as it is read (Durgunoğlu & Öney, 1999).
Furthermore, in Turkish, the form of suffixes changes depending on the vowel at the end
of the root word, following a rule known as vowel harmony. Suffixes take shape based on
the final vowel of the root word. If the final vowel of the root word is ‘a’, ‘ı’, ‘o’ or ‘u’, the suf-
fix appears as ‘da’. However, if the final vowel of the root word is ‘e’, ‘i’, ‘ö’ or ‘ü’, the suffix
appears as ‘de’. For example, when adding the ‘- de’ suffix to the word ‘ev’ (home), the ap-
propriate form is ‘de’ because the final vowel of the root word is ‘e’. Consequently, the word
‘ev’ is written as ‘evde’. Similarly, when adding the ‘- da’ suffix to the word ‘okul’ (school), the
appropriate form is ‘da’ because the final vowel of the root word is ‘u’. Thus, the word ‘okul’
is written as ‘okulda’. These rules ensure that suffixes in Turkish are used in harmony with
root words. Additionally, consonants such as p, b, d and t are critical in the Turkish alphabet
for representing both their own sound properties and phonological processes like consonant
lenition. These processes allow for changes in the pronunciation of voiced consonants de-
pending on their position within a word. For example, in the word ‘kapıda’, the ‘p’ consonant
in ‘kapı’ undergoes a lenition process, becoming ‘b’ at the end of the word and pronounced
as ‘kapıda’. These features, including certain grammatical structures and affixes in Turkish,
can be complex for children, making it challenging for them to form words correctly. This can
create difficulties in the development of children's writing skills.
In the literature, there is no study in the Turkish language comparing the writing skills
of students with and without learning disabilities in terms of visual perception and execu-
tive functions. Since learning disabilities are usually diagnosed under a single umbrella in
Turkey, this study aims to examine this broad population of students with learning disabilities
by addressing the various difficulties of students with learning disabilities more comprehen-
sively. In Turkey, the diagnostic process and infrastructure for specific learning disabilities
diagnoses are still in their infancy compared with other countries. Therefore, this study con-
sidered a broad spectrum of students with learning disabilities and addressed this group of
students in general. The importance of this study lies in its potential to fill the gap in the field
of education by focusing on the writing skills of students with learning disabilities in Turkey.
The fact that the diagnostic and classification processes in Turkey generally do not focus on
specific learning disabilities increases the value of this study, while simultaneously contribut-
ing to the international educational literature. In particular, the results of this study may help
teachers, educational policymakers and researchers to develop more effective strategies to
improve the writing skills of students with learning disabilities. Therefore, in addition to ex-
isting knowledge in international literature, this study is expected to make a significant con-
tribution to the literature by providing a deeper understanding of the education system and
student needs in Turkey. By focusing on the writing skills of students with learning disabili-
ties, we aim to provide a more detailed understanding of the educational context in Turkey.
This study, which was conducted to overcome these deficiencies, aims to make an essential
contribution to the literature on the education and development of writing skills by providing
comprehensive and up- to- date information on the effects of Turkish on writing skills, visual
perception and executive function. As students develop their writing skills and encounter
more complex linguistic structures, this study was conducted with fourth grade students.
For this purpose, we sought answers to the following questions:
1. Is there a significant difference between students with and without learning disabilities
in terms of writing skills, visual perception and executive function performances?
2. Is there a significant relationship between visual perception, executive functions and writ-
ing skills of Turkish students with learning disabilities?
3. Do visual perception and executive function skills of students with learning disabilities pre-
dict their writing skills?
450
|
ALT I N DAĞ and SÜMER
METHOD
Participants
The study group consisted of 90 fourth- grade students attending primary schools in the Central
Anatolia region of Turkey, including students with typical development (n = 45; 25 girls and 20
boys; age 9.74 years, SD = 3.64) and students diagnosed with specific learning disabilities and
receiving support education from special education institutions (n = 45; 25 girls and 20 boys;
age 9.82 years, SD = 3.95). Typically developing students were included in the study using a
simple random sampling method from the class where the students with learning disabilities
are located. Simple random sampling aims to provide each sampling unit with an equal op-
portunity to be selected in order to sample the units to be selected (Büyüköztürk et al., 2014).
The mothers of 7% of the students with learning disabilities were illiterate, 33% had com-
pleted primary school, 10% had completed secondary school, 39% had completed high
school, 5% had an associate degree and 6% were university graduates. The mothers of 3%
of typically developing (TD) students were illiterate, 10% had completed primary school, 20%
had completed secondary school, 40% had completed high school, 9% had an associate
degree and 18% were university graduates. The fathers of 5% of the students with learning
disabilities were illiterate, 17% were primary school graduates, 3% were secondary school
graduates, 45% were high school graduates and 30% were university graduates. Of the TD
students, 6% of fathers had graduated from secondary school, 44% from high school, 2%
with an associate degree and 48% from university. According to the information determined
by the SED Index Form (Ergül & Demir, 2017): 20 of the LD children had lower socioeco-
nomic status (SES) and 25 had medium SES, and 22 of the TD children had lower SES and
23 had medium SES. In addition, all students participating in the study were right- handed.
Since dysgraphia is not diagnosed in Turkey, students in this group were directly defined
as having learning disabilities. The difficulties experienced by students with learning disabil-
ities emerge towards the end of the first grade of primary school when academic learning
occurs. In our country, they are diagnosed as early as the second grade (Çakmak, 2017).
In this study, the following prerequisites were sought to identify students with learning dis-
abilities and those with typical development. For students with learning disabilities, the crite-
ria included being a fourth- grade student, having been diagnosed with learning disabilities
based on the medical board report (Special Needs Report for Children) in the students’ file,
scoring 90 and above on the Wechsler Intelligence Test for Children, and having a 15- point
difference between the verbal and performance parts of the test. Additionally, these stu-
dents needed to have difficulty in writing based on the teacher's opinion and not have any
additional disabilities, such as visual or hearing impairments. For the identification of TD stu-
dents, the prerequisites included being at a similar grade level as students diagnosed with
learning disabilities, not having a diagnosis of any disability and performing at a reasonable
level in terms of writing performance according to teachers’ views.
Measures
SES index parent information form (Ergül & Demir, 2017)
The tool used to determine the SES of children participating in the study was completed
by the parents. The form includes variables such as mother's and father's education level,
occupational information, home ownership status, the number of books in their home and
participation in cultural activities. Owing to the information obtained from the form, five SES
levels are defined as lower, lower- middle, middle, upper- middle and upper.
|
451
THE CASE OF TURKISH- SPEAKING CHILDREN
Writing sentences and writing skills assessment form
Five different sentences were used to evaluate the student's writing by copying in a close
range. The researchers created the sentences, and expert opinions were obtained on their
appropriateness. Each sentence was written on lined paper in a 13- point Comic Sans MS
font. Three lines of space were left between the sentences for the students to write. Four
sentences were used to evaluate students’ writing by copying at a distance, which were also
created by the researchers and for which expert opinions were obtained. These sentences
were written in 60 point font size and Comic Sans MS typeface on cartons and hung four
steps away from the evaluated student. Five sentences developed by Erden et al. (2002), for
which expert opinions were taken on comprehensibility and appropriateness, were used to
evaluate students’ writing of the dictated text. In the sentences used in all three conditions,
consonant letters, such as p, b, d, t, m, n, v and f, were frequently used (the letters most
frequently confused by students with LD; for example, demek instead of demet).
A writing skills assessment form was used to evaluate students’ writing. The researchers
created this form at the end of the literature review, and expert opinions were obtained about
its suitability for the research. The form consists of four sections: student information, formal
features of the writing (such as line following, spacing between letters and words, capitalisation
and lowercase letter ratios), spelling–punctuation (use of capital letters and punctuation marks)
and writing errors (such as skipping and/or adding letters–syllables–words, mixing letters).
The format and spelling punctuation features of the students’ writings were scored as
‘completely appropriate, partially appropriate, and inappropriate’ on the form by examining
the writings. When writing errors were evaluated, each error was given one point.
Bender–Gestalt Test
Wertheimer developed the Bender–Gestalt Visual Motor Perception Test forms to apply the
principles of Gestalt psychology to perception. In 1938, Bender adapted these forms and
developed a test to measure visual–motor perception. The Bender–Gestalt Test was ad-
ministered to children aged between 5 years, 6 months and 10 years, 11 months. It consisted
of nine cards with shapes on these cards. The first card was labelled A, and the others
numbered 1–8. The Koppitz scoring system is used in scoring. In this system, each error
is given one point (Koppitz, 1964). The highest possible score is 30. Because the Bender–
Gestalt Test is scored according to errors, a high score is considered an indicator of low
performance and a low score is an indicator of high performance. The subdomains of visual
perception are critical for tasks such as letter formation, spacing and alignment, which are
important for writing. This assessment tool was chosen because it is thought to be effective
in assessing these tasks in these areas. The Cronbach's α coefficients calculated for the
reliability of the subscales in this study were found to be 0.73.
Childhood Executive Functioning Inventory
The Childhood Executive Functioning Inventory was developed by Thorell and Nyberg (2008)
and adapted for Turkish by Kayhan. (2010). The Inventory consists of four subdimensions
and 26 items. The dimensions were working memory (11 items), planning (four items), in-
hibitory control (six items) and organisation (five items). When the factors were examined,
it was found that the first factor included items related to working memory and planning
subdimensions, and the second factor included items related to inhibitory control and regu-
lation subdimensions. The scale was organised into 26 items, 15 of which were related to
452
|
ALT I N DAĞ and SÜMER
working memory and 11 of which were related to inhibitory control. The inventory is a five-
point Likert- type scale (1 = absolutely not true, 5 = true) filled in by the teacher and takes
5–10 min on average (Thorell & Nyberg, 2008). The minimum score that can be obtained
from the inventory is 0 and the maximum score is 130. High scores on the inventory are in-
terpreted as children having difficulty with executive function skills (Kayhan., 2010; Thorell &
Nyberg, 2008). The Cronbach's α coefficients calculated for the reliability of the subscales in
this study were found to be 0.95 for the working memory subscale and 0.91 for the inhibitory
control subscale. The fact that this instrument focuses on working memory and inhibition is
especially important to understand the difficulties faced by children with learning disabilities
in writing tasks. Therefore, this instrument was selected.
Procedure
This research adhered to the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration of 1975 as revised in 2000.
Firstly, study approval was received from Çankırı University Scientific Research and Ethical
Review Board. The research was conducted in the primary schools and private special
education institutions that students attended in the second semester of the 2022–2023 aca-
demic year. Firstly, the families of the determined students were informed about the study,
and permission was obtained from the family for the study. Then, the purpose of the study
was explained to the students, and they were asked whether they had volunteered. Research
data were collected by working one- on- one with students. Before the study, the students
were introduced to the researcher and they chatted briefly, and they were accustomed to
the researcher and environment. The students’ evaluations were carried out individually in
an empty classroom in the schools they attended.
This study adhered to ethical guidelines for research involving children with learning dis-
abilities. Informed consent was obtained from the parents or guardians of the participants,
and assent was sought from the children, where appropriate. To ensure confidentiality, all
data were anonymised, and information was securely stored and accessible only to the
research team. The well- being of participants was a priority throughout the study. The re-
search team took steps to minimise any potential distress or discomfort, provided support as
needed and ensured that participation was entirely voluntary.
While collecting the data on writing by copying at a close range, the students were shown
a lined paper on which the sentences were written and asked, ‘There are five sentences in
this paper and blank lines under the sentences. I want you to write the same sentences in
your best writing on the lines below them.’ The students were given paper, a pencil and an
eraser and were expected to write all of the sentences. When collecting data on copying
from a distance, the students were given blank lined paper and told, ‘Write the sentences
written on the cardboard in front of you on this paper in your best writing.’ They were ex-
pected to write all of the sentences. While evaluating the students’ writing of the dictated
text, blank lined paper was given to the students, and they were told, ‘Now I am going to read
a few sentences to you. I want you to write the sentences I read to you in your best writing
and carefully on the paper before you.’ The researcher read the sentences in phrases of a
few words according to the student's writing speed. When writing errors were evaluated,
each error was given a score. For example, students who skipped vowel or consonant letters
in the dictated word sequence (e.g. ‘madonoz’ instead of ‘maydonoz’) were given one point
for their mistake. Another example is that students who omitted the syllables they should
use in the dictated word sequence were given one point each for their mistakes (e.g. ‘Dün
gece yolda giken’ instead of ‘Dün gece yolda giderken’). The content of the writing skills
assessment form is explained above. In order to ensure the reliability of the scoring for the
evaluation of writing errors, all data collected from all participants were re- evaluated by an
|
453
THE CASE OF TURKISH- SPEAKING CHILDREN
independent researcher who did not have the student's diagnosis information. For the er-
rors that were thought to be different in the evaluation, the researchers met, discussed and
reached a consensus. In this study, inter- rater reliability was determined as 0.98.
During the application of the Bender–Gestalt test, the students were told ‘I will show you
some shapes, draw these shapes on the paper as you see on the card’. The test started
with card and then the patterns from 1 to 8 were given one after the other. The papers on
which the patterns were to be drawn were plain white and unlined. The test was not limited
to a certain period of time and the patterns were not removed before they were drawn. The
test was re- evaluated by an independent researcher as in the case of writing errors. In this
study, inter- rater reliability was determined as 0.99. The Childhood Executive Functioning
Inventory Parent Form was completed by the parents of the children included in the study for
the children who received the intervention.
Data analysis
In this study, firstly, MANOVA (Multivariate Analysis of Variance) was used to test whether
the students’ writing error (distant, close and dictation) performances, visual perception
and executive function performances differed significantly according to the student group
(learning disability and typical development). Secondly, the relationships between writing,
visual perception and executive function variables were analysed using Pearson's correla-
tion coefficient. Thirdly, predictors of writing skills in children with learning disabilities were
analysed using a regression analysis.
Before the analysis, univariate and multivariate normality assumptions were tested, miss-
ing and extreme values were examined for all variables and descriptive statistics (skewness,
kurtosis coefficients, means, and standard deviations) were calculated. No missing data
were found for any of the variables in the dataset, and the skewness kurtosis coefficients
of all variables were very close to the value ranges of −1 and +1. The data met the re-
quirements of univariate and multivariate normality, linearity, and lack of autocorrelation.
Multicollinearity was not observed.
RES U LTS
Error averages of students with learning disabilities regarding their
writing skills
Table 1 reveals the errors in the writing skills of students with learning disabilities by analys-
ing their mean errors in different writing situations. In dictated sentences, students’ error
rates (skipping letters, skipping syllables, writing backward, mixing letters, skipping words
and adding words) were significantly higher than in the other two cases. This shows that
dictated sentences are more challenging for students and that this type of writing activity
challenges students’ writing skills more.
Findings related to student groups
A MANOVA was used to examine whether the groups showed a significant difference in
terms of the total number of errors they made in the conditions of writing by looking at close
and far distances and writing the dictated text. In this study, the groups differed in variables
Pillai's trace = 0 .91, F (6, 83) = 15 2 .13 , p < 0.001. Because the groups differed in more than
454
|
ALT I N DAĞ and SÜMER
one variable, Pillai's trace was preferred as the test statistic (Olson, 1979; Stevens, 1979).
This result shows that writing errors, executive function and visual perception levels vary
according to the student group.
Table 2 shows that the levels of writing errors, executive function and visual perception
differed significantly according to student group. It was analysed whether the students’ near,
far and dictation writing error scores were significantly different according to the student
group. It was observed that there was a statistically significant difference in the near (F (1,
88) = 3 0.70, p < 0 .0 01, η2 = 0.26), far (F (1, 88) = 3 4.86, p < 0. 00 1, η2 = 0.28) and dictation (F
(1, 88) = 73.74, p < 0 .0 01, η2 = 0.46) writing error scores of the students according to the stu-
dent group. After analysing the error averages, it was revealed that students with learning
disabilities made a higher number of mistakes in their writing skills.
TAB LE 1 Average errors in writing skills of students with learning disabilities (N = 45).
Features obser ved in writing
Writing from
close distance
Writing from
far distance
Writing dictated
sentence
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Formal assessment of writing
Starts writing with enough space from the left
side of the paper
1.02 (0 .1 6) 1.11 (0. 4 0) 1.25 (0.50)
Writes by following the line 1.31 (0.58) 1.14 ( 0 . 3 5) 1.2 2 (0.54)
Writes with appropriate spacing between
letters
2.34 (0.72) 2.40 (0.55) 2.34 (0.72)
Writes with appropriate spacing between
words
1.22 (0.54) 1.28 (0.54) 1.28 (0 .51)
Writes with proportional and appropriately
sized uppercase and lowercase letters
1.57 (0. 65) 1.54 (0. 65) 1.48 (0.65)
Spelling and punctuation
Starts the sentence with a capital letter and
uses capital letters where necessary within
the sentence
5.28 (5.80) 5.02 (4.83) 5.42 (5.65)
Uses appropriate punctuation marks at the
end and within the sentence
5.22 (5.51) 5.01 (4.60) 6.34 (6.72)
Evaluation of writing errors
Letter omission 12.02 (13.42) 12.62 (13.9 4) 18. 94 (19.34)
Syllable omission 9.31 (9.59) 9.34 (9.67) 13.71 (13.31)
Letter addition 11.22 (12.49) 10 . 2 2 (11.6 4) 14.54 (15 .78)
Syllable addition 10 .05 (11. 2 3) 10 .08 (11. 2 8) 13 .17 (12.45)
Reversing letters 8.08 (9. 28) 8.0 5 (9 .13 ) 12.0 8 (0.28)
Mixing letters 5.37 (6.66) 5.45 (6.72) 8.02 (8.79)
Word omission 7.01 ( 8 . 5 8) 6.46 (6.88) 13.51 (12.88)
Word addition 5. 0 2 (6.16 ) 5.05 (6.23) 10 .08 (11. 2 8)
Inventing words 3.05 (3.12) 3.02 (0.316) 9.35 (9.16)
Incorrectly dividing words at the end of a line 5.08 (6.28) 5.28 (6.52) 7.37 (6.77)
Incorrect spelling of words 3.08 (3.28) 3.05 (3.12) 8 . 9 4 (7.60)
Total average 5.40 (6.29) 5.34 (4.98) 8.28 (6.08)
Abbreviations: M, Mean; SD, standard deviation.
|
455
THE CASE OF TURKISH- SPEAKING CHILDREN
When evaluating the visual perception scores of students, it was discovered that there
was a statistically significant difference between the groups (F (1, 88) = 17. 7 6 , p < 0. 001,
η2 = 0.17). Moreover, it became evident that the visual perception performance of students
with learning disabilities was lower than that of their peers with typical development. In ad-
dition, analysis of working memory (WM) performance revealed a statistically significant dif-
ference between the groups (F (1, 88) = 679.99, p < 0.0 01, η2 = 0.88). The WM performance
of students with learning disabilities was lower than that of their peers with normal develop-
ment. Furthermore, when analysing inhibition performances, a statistically significant differ-
ence was found between the student groups (F (1, 88) = 157.95, p < 0. 001, η2 = 0.64). It was
found that the inhibition performances of students with learning disabilities were at a lower
level than their peers with normal development.
The relationship between writing, executive function and visual
perception skills of children with learning disabilities
The relationship between writing, executive function (working memory and inhibition) and
visual perception skills was examined to answer the second research question. The cor-
relation coefficients between variables were calculated using Pearson's correlation test.
Pearson's correlation coefficients between visual perception, working memory, inhibition
and writing in children with learning disabilities showed statistically significant relation-
ships, indicating that these cognitive functions are interconnected with writing perfor-
mance. A moderate negative correlation was observed between the Writing Error score
and visual perception (r = − 0. 5 7, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.350, 0.264), working memory
(r = − 0. 33 , p < 0.001, 95% CI = −0.591, −0.070) and inhibition (r = −0.35, p < 0. 00 1; 95 %
CI = −0.499, −0.001). As the executive function and visual perception scores of students
with learning disabilities were enhanced, their writing error scores diminished. Additionally,
a moderate positive correlation was found between the visual perception score and work-
ing memory (r = 0.48, p < 0.001; 95% CI = 0.223, 0.697) and inhibition (r = 0.44, p < 0. 00 1;
95% CI = 0.159, 0.680). Moreover, a moderate positive correlation was observed between
working memory and inhibition (r = 0.73, p < 0.001; 95% CI = 0.002, 0.020). According to
TAB LE 2 MANOVA results of writing errors, executive function and visual perception levels according to
student group (n = 45 for each group).
Dependent variable Group MSD SE SD
Close distance looking writing LD 5.40 6.29 0.39 1–88
TD 0.63 1.05
Writing by looking into the distance LD 5.34 4.98 1.66 1– 88
TD 1.11 1.67
Writing what is dictated LD 8.28 6.08 1.62 1–88
TD 0.94 1.6 4
Visual perception LD 3.06 2.16 0.87 1–88
TD 1.40 1.52
Working memory LD 62.44 11. 0 9 0.71 1–88
TD 18.95 1.46
Inhibition LD 44.06 7. 8 4 0.85 1–88
TD 23.71 7.51
Abbreviations: LD, learning disabilities; M, Mean; SD, standard deviation; SE, standard error; TD, typical development.
456
|
ALT I N DAĞ and SÜMER
the correlation results, as the visual perception, working memory, and inhibition scores
of the students with learning disabilities participating in the study increased, their writing
errors decreased.
Findings on the prediction of writing skills of students with learning
disabilities
The prediction of the study's independent variables, executive function and visual percep-
tion skills on the dependent variable, writing, were tested using multiple linear regression
analysis. Regarding the adequacy of the sample size, Siddiqui (2013) used the standard of
15–20 observations for each of the independent variables in the regression analysis. In this
study, visual perception, WM and inhibition were independent variables. Before analysis,
the dataset was examined to meet the regression analysis assumptions. First, the suitability
of the data for normal distribution was evaluated. The data met the normality assumption.
For the regression analysis to provide accurate results, there should be a low degree of
relationship between the predictor variables. When a correlation above 0.80 is observed
between the predictor variables, the possibility of multicollinearity should be emphasised
(Büyüköztürk, 2005). Since the correlations between the variables in the regression model
of the study ranged between 0.33 and 0.73, it was considered that there was no multicol-
linearity problem.
The VIF (Variance Inflation Factor) values were 1.03 for visual perception, 8.82 for work-
ing memory and 8.42 for inhibition. The values examined to determine whether there is a
multicollinearity problem between the variables in the linear regression model (VIF <10)
indicate that the variables are suitable for analysis (George & Mallery, 2010). The Durbin–
Watson statistic value obtained is 1.98 and it is understood that the independence of ob-
servations is not violated (no autocorrelation). It is recommended that the Durbin–Watson
statistic should be around 2 (1.5–2.5) for the error variances to be uncorrelated. Accordingly,
it can be said that there is no relationship between the error variances of the model.
As seen in Table 3, where the results of the regression analysis are summarised, the
model established as a result of the analysis using the enter method is significant (F (3,
41) = 3.4 4, p < 0.001). When the parameters obtained as a result of regression analysis are
examined, it is seen that WM (β = −1. 6 0 , t = −2 .2 4 , p < 0.001, 95% CI = −2.83, −0.09), inhibi-
tion (β = −1.15, t = −1 . 20 , p < 0.001, 95% CI = −2.59, −0.68) and visual perception (β = − 1. 9 9 ,
t = −1 . 82 , p < 0.001, 95% CI = −3.96, −0.51) have an effect on the predicted variable of writing
according to the standardised regression coefficient. Accordingly, the predictor variables
explained 20% of the change in writing achievement of students with learning disabilities.
Considering the standardised beta coefficients, the relative order of importance of the
TAB LE 3 Regression analysis results on the predictors of writing.
Variables βaSE Bbβct p VIF
Uncorrelated error
variances
Constant 117.67 15.38 7. 6 4 0.02 Durbin Watson 1.98
Visual perception −1.9 9 1.0 9 −0.29 −1.82 0.04 1.03
Working memory −1.60 0.71 −0.93 −2.24 0.03 8.82
Inhibition −1.15 0.96 −0.48 −1. 20 0.02 8.42
R = 0.45, R2 = 0.20
aUnstandardized beta coefficient.
bStandardized beta coeff icient.
cNew standardized beta coefficient.
|
457
THE CASE OF TURKISH- SPEAKING CHILDREN
predictor variables on the dependent variable writing skill was working memory, inhibition
and visual perception. According to Table 3 it can be said that visual perception, WM and
inhibition are predictors of the writing skills of students with learning disabilities.
DISCUSSION
This study aimed to examine the effects of visual perception and executive functions on the
writing skills of Turkish students with and without learning disabilities, and the relationships
between these variables. The results of the study show significant differences between
student groups in terms of writing errors, executive function and visual perception levels.
In particular, students with learning disabilities had higher error scores and exhibited lower
visual perception and executive functioning skills. The findings also revealed significant
relationships between the writing errors of children with learning disabilities and visual
perception, working memory and inhibition. Finally, executive function and visual perception
skills were found to play important roles in predicting the writing skills of students with
learning disabilities.
The findings of this study were consistent with those of previous studies. It has been
observed that students with learning disabilities’ weaknesses in visual perception and ex-
ecutive functions directly affect their performance in writing skills (Berninger et al., 2009;
Borsting, 2006; Caravolas et al., 2001). This emphasises the importance of focusing on
visual perception and executive function to improve the writing skills of students with learn-
ing disabilities. In addition, in this study, children with learning disabilities made significantly
more errors than typically developing children in all three writing conditions (close- range-
looking writing, far- range- looking writing and dictated writing). This difference was most
pronounced in the dictated writing condition, suggesting that children with LD had greater
difficulties in dictated writing skills. Visual perception has several subdomains that affect
writing skills, each of which may play an important role in the writing performance of chil-
dren with learning disabilities. For example, spatial relations play a critical role in the correct
placement and alignment of letters and words on a paper. Deficits in this skill can lead to ir-
regular or illegible writing. Visual discrimination is the ability to distinguish between small dif-
ferences between letters and words. Children who are weak in this skill may confuse similar
letters and make spellings. Visual memory involves the capacity to remember what they see
and reproduce it in writing. Students with weak visual memory may have difficulty writing
words correctly and remembering sentence structure. Each of these subdomains can lead
to significant difficulties at different stages of the writing process and can negatively affect
the writing performance of children with learning disabilities. Therefore, assessing and sup-
porting each of these skills separately is vital for improving their writing skills.
These findings of the study on various subdomains affecting writing skills support the
existing literature on the writing skills of children with learning disabilities (Koutsoftas &
Nicotera, 2023; Raof et al., 2023; Re et al., 2023). For example, Re et al. (2023) found that
children with learning disabilities write more slowly and make more errors than do children
with typical development. Gillespie and Graham (2014) conducted a meta- analysis to exam-
ine the writing skills of children with learning disabilities. Their findings showed that children
with learning disabilities had significantly higher error rates in dictation- based writing tasks.
These studies strengthen the validity of the current study's findings.
The results of this study confirm the relationship between writing error scores and visual
perception, working memory and executive function skills. This relationship indicated that
inadequate executive function and visual perception skills may lead to an increase in writ-
ing errors. Similarly, it has been reported that lack of executive function skills negatively
affects the writing process (Alloway et al., 2009; Baddeley & Hitch, 1974; Berninger, Abbott,
458
|
ALT I N DAĞ and SÜMER
Vermeulen, & Fulton, 2006; Gathercole, 2008; Graham et al., 2021; Oddsdóttir et al., 2020).
Various studies have emphasised that writing is a complex cognitive process, and that ex-
ecutive functions play a critical role in the effective management of this process (Baddeley
& Hitch, 1974; Berninger & Winn, 2006; Kamran et al., 2023; Re et al., 2023). For example,
working memory is directly related to the ability to retain and process information during
writing, and deficiencies in this skill can negatively affect the coherence and fluency of writ-
ing (Berninger & Winn, 2006; Gathercole, 2008). Students with poor working memory may
forget previous sentences in the middle of writing them, which may lead to a breakdown
in coherence of meaning. Inhibitory control involves the ability to focus attention and sup-
press distractions; inadequacy of this skill can lead to frequent errors and focusing problems
during writing (Graham et al., 2021). For example, external noise or internal thoughts while
writing can easily distract students with low inhibition control, which can interrupt the writing
process. Cognitive flexibility refers to the ability to switch between different writing tasks
and organise written expressions. Lack of this skill can cause writing to be monotonous and
full of errors (Kamran et al., 2023). A lack of cognitive flexibility may reduce the quality of
students’ written expressions by limiting their ability to revise and correct their writing. In this
context, deficits in executive functions indicate that individuals with learning disabilities have
difficulty organising their writing, ensuring coherence and getting their written expressions
down on paper without making mistakes (Alloway et al., 2009; Baddeley & Hitch, 1974).
Understanding how each component contributes to different aspects of the writing process
may enable the development of more targeted interventions to support the writing skills of
children with learning disabilities. Another important finding was the impact of visual percep-
tion skills on the writing process. Visual perception plays a central role in key elements of the
writing process such as letter formation, correct alignment and appropriate spacing (Grewal
et al., 2014; Méary et al., 2005). Children with learning disabilities may make errors in writing
tasks because of their deficits in these skills. In particular, the literature warns about how the
visual perception difficulties of individuals with learning disabilities can affect their written
expression (Borsting, 2006; Gray, 2022). These results emphasise the importance of edu-
cators and pedagogues focusing on these skills to support the writing process of individuals
with learning disabilities.
The results of the regression analysis showed that the independent variables of visual
perception, working memory and inhibition significantly explained writing skills. This finding
reveals that the effects of these variables on writing skills are significant. In particular, it em-
phasises that executive functions, such as visual perception, working memory and inhibition,
play a central role in the writing process, and that deficiencies in these factors can increase
writing errors (Alloway & Alloway, 2010; Swanson & Sachse- Lee, 2001). In this context,
the variance ratio obtained allows for the identification of areas that should be targeted in
the development of writing skills (Barkley, 2012). Visual perception and executive functions
should be strengthened while developing educational practices and intervention strategies
(Diamond, 2013). These results reveal the importance of considering executive functions
and perceptual skills in interventions to improve writing skills (Barkley, 2012; Swanson &
Sachse- Lee, 2001).
The results of this study revealed that visual perception and executive function are import-
ant factors affecting Turkish students’ writing skills. It was observed that the weaknesses
of students with learning disabilities in these areas were clearly reflected in their writing
skills. The structure of Turkish is full of features, such as vowel harmony and articulation.
This may require students to learn word structure and grammar differently than in other
languages. The development of writing skills in students with learning disabilities, espe-
cially in the Turkish context, is influenced by various factors specific to language structure
(Kaldırım & Tavşanlı, 2021). As a syllable- based, phonetically transparent and agglutinative
language, Turkish presents unique challenges for acquiring writing skills for individuals with
|
459
THE CASE OF TURKISH- SPEAKING CHILDREN
LD (Kaldırım & Tavşanlı, 2021). Students with LD may face difficulties in the writing process
because of weaknesses in visual perception and executive functions, which may be exac-
erbated by the complexity of the transparent orthographic language structure (Pourfaraman
& Taher, 2022). Cultural factors also have a significant impact on the development of writing
skills and learning disabilities. Educational practices and cultural attitudes towards learning
disabilities in Turkey can significantly influence the findings of this study. As the level of
awareness and acceptance of learning disabilities is still developing in Turkey, support and
interventions appropriate to the needs of these students may not be adequately provided
(Diken, 2010). Students with learning disabilities may face additional challenges in develop-
ing their writing skills owing to the fear of stigmatisation. Culturally, the importance of aca-
demic skills such as writing and reading shapes the expectations of families and teachers
in these areas. Therefore, the findings of this study should be considered in light of Turkey's
educational and cultural contexts. Educators and policymakers should develop more com-
prehensive and responsive strategies to support the writing skills of children with learning
disabilities, taking into account cultural factors.
The findings of this study emphasise the need for a better understanding of the devel-
opment of writing skills in the Turkish educational system. In particular, it is important to
develop programmes and interventions to support students’ visual perception and executive
function. Such programmes can be designed to meet students’ visual perception needs
and improve their executive function during the writing process. Moreover, it is important
for teachers to implement different teaching strategies to support students’ writing skills by
considering these factors (Sittiprapaporn, 2020).
LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Limitations
This study has certain limitations. First, sample selection was limited to a specific region
or school group, which may have reduced the generalisability of the results. Using a larger
and more diverse sample size could enhance the generalisability of our findings. Second,
employing different research methods or measurement tools might provide a deeper un-
derstanding of the results. Third, the structure of Turkish may have a determining effect on
writing skills. Features such as vowel harmony and agglutinative structures could pose ad-
ditional challenges for children with learning disabilities. As this study is the first to examine
the effects of visual perception and executive function on writing skills in Turkish, it contrib-
utes significantly to the literature. However, this study alone is insufficient to determine the
extent to which Turkish language structure affects the writing skills of children with learning
disabilities. Therefore, future studies should examine the impact of the Turkish language
structure on writing skills in more detail.
Recommendations
In line with the findings of this study, it is recommended that research be conducted to ex-
plore how strategies that support visual perception and executive function can be applied in
education. Specifically, studies and interventions that evaluate the effects of special educa-
tion programmes designed to improve visual perception and executive function on writing
skills can fill this knowledge gap. For example, experimental studies could determine how
games that strengthen visual perception, or techniques that support executive functions in
the writing process, contribute to students’ writing performance.
460
|
ALT I N DAĞ and SÜMER
Based on these research findings, individualised education programmes should be
developed to support the writing skills of children with learning disabilities. These pro-
grammes should include activities that strengthen visual perception and executive func-
tions. Educators can improve students’ writing skills using visual perception games and
executive function exercises. Additionally, special training and awareness programmes
for teachers should be offered to help them better understand the needs of students with
learning disabilities and to provide effective interventions. Support programmes should
also be developed for families to provide guidance on how to support their children's
writing skills at home. Policymakers should create policies that provide more resources
and support to students with learning disabilities. These recommendations are crucial
steps towards addressing the current deficiencies in the education system and improving
children's writing skills.
To determine the effects of Turkish's unique linguistic features on children with learning
disabilities, comprehensive studies involving cultural and linguistic factors should be con-
ducted. These studies can reveal the effects of language structure and explain how educa-
tional practices can be shaped. Considering the limitations of this study, longitudinal studies
examining the development of writing skills and the long- term effects of visual perception
and executive functions are recommended. Such studies may help us better understand the
changes in writing skills over time and their relationship with visual perception and executive
functions.
Educational implications
Educators and pedagogues play important roles in supporting the writing skills of students
with learning disabilities. Strategies targeting cognitive aspects such as visual perception
and executive functions can significantly improve the writing output of students with LD and
help them overcome barriers associated with both their cognitive processes and the lin-
guistic structure of Turkish. This study contributes to potential strategies aimed at improving
writing outcomes by elucidating the role of executive function and visual perception skills in
writing difficulties in children with LD.
This research can strengthen evidence- based practices aimed at supporting the writing
skills of children with learning disabilities by using a transparent orthographic language.
Therefore, the salient findings of this study can be used as a resource for the creation and
implementation of educational programmes designed to improve the writing skills of children
with learning disabilities.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
As the author, I declare that there is no financial support or other conflict of interest as-
sociated with the execution of this study. This research has been conducted with the
principles of objectivity and impartiality and does not reflect any commercial or financial
interests.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Researchers who wish to obtain additional data or conduct further analysis may contact the
author to request supplementary information or materials. The author is willing to collaborate
and provide the necessary information to support the results presented in the article.
ETHICS STATEMENT
Data collection from students for this study was conducted with the utmost consideration
for ethical standards. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the appropriate
|
461
THE CASE OF TURKISH- SPEAKING CHILDREN
educational authorities, ensuring that the research adhered to ethical guidelines and safe-
guarded the well- being of the participants. This study adhered to ethical guidelines for re-
search involving children with learning disabilities. Informed consent was obtained from the
parents or guardians of the participants, and assent was sought from the children, where
appropriate. To ensure confidentiality, all data were anonymised and information was se-
curely stored and accessible only to the research team. The well- being of participants was
a priority throughout the study. The research team took steps to minimise any potential dis-
tress or discomfort, provided support as needed and ensured that participation was entirely
voluntary. This study received ethical approval from the Social and Human Sciences Ethics
Committee of University.
DE C L A R ATI ON S
The author confirms that the work submitted here is not published or submitted for publica-
tion elsewhere.
ORCID
Kumaş Özlem Altindağ https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6104-2381
Dodur Halime Miray Sümer https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1470-8195
REFERENCES
Alloway, T. P., & Alloway, R. G. (2010). Investigating the predictive roles of working memory and IQ in academic
attainment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 106 (1), 20–29 .
Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., Kirkwood, H., & Elliott, J. (2009). The cognitive and behavioral characteristics of
children with low working memory. Child Development, 80(2), 606–621. https: / / doi . org/ 1 0. 1111/ j . 1467- 8 6 24.
2009. 01282. x
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memor y. In G. A. Bower (Ed.), Recent advances in learning and
motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). Academic Press. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0079 - 7421(08) 60452 - 1
Barkley, R. A. (2012). Executive functions: What they are, how they work, and why they evolved. Guilford Press.
Bender, W. N. (2004). Learning Disabilities. In Characteristics, identification and teaching strategies (5th ed.).
Pearson.
Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Augsburger, A., & Garcia, N. (2009). Comparison of pen and keyboard transcrip-
tion modes in children with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(3), 123 –141.
doi:10.2307/27740364
Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Jones, J., Wolf, B. J., Gould, L., Anderson- Youngstrom, M., Shimada, S., &
Apel, K. (2006). Early development of language by hand: Composing, reading, listening, and speaking con-
nections; three letter- writing modes; and fast mapping in spelling. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29(1),
61–92. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ s1532 6942d n2901_ 5
Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Vermeulen, K., & Fulton, C. M. (2006). Paths to reading comprehension in at- risk
second- grade readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(4), 334–351. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00222 19406
03900 40701
Berninger, V. W., Nielsen, K. H., Abbott, R. D., Wijsman, E., & Raskind, W. (2008). Writing problems in develop-
mental dyslexia: Under- recognized and under- treated. Journal of School Psychology, 46(1), 1–21. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1016/j. jsp. 2006. 11. 00 8
Berninger, V. W., & Richards, T. L. (2002). Brain literacy for educators and psychologists. Academic 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. A. Macarthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald
(Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 96–114). The Guilford Press.
Borsting, E. (2006). Overview of vision efficiency and visual processing development. In M. M. Scheiman & M. W.
Rouse (Eds.), Optometric management of learning- related vision problems (pp. 35–68). Mosby.
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2005). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (5th ed.). PegemA.
Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç- Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & ve Demirel, F. (2014). Bilimsel araştırma yön-
temleri (17th ed.). PegemA.
Çakmak, Z. (2017). Guidance and research centre staff 's views on the evaluation processes of individuals with
learning disabilities (Master's thesis). Anadolu University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Department of
Special Education, Eskişehir.
Caravolas, M., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2001). The foundations of spelling ability: Evidence from a 3- year
longitudinal study. Journal of Memor y and Language, 45(4), 751–7 74.
462
|
ALT I N DAĞ and SÜMER
Caravolas, M., & Volín, J. (2001). Phonological spelling errors among dyslexic children learning a transparent
orthography: The case of Czech. Dyslexia, 7(4), 229 –245.
Cassar, M., Treiman, R., Moats, L., Pollo, T. C., & Kessler, B. (2005). How do the spellings of children with dyslexia
compare with those of nondyslexic children? Reading and Writing, 18, 27– 49.
Cordeiro, C., Limpo, T., Olive, T., & Castro, S. L. (2020). Do executive functions contribute to writing quality in be-
ginning writers? A longitudinal study with second graders. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,
33(4), 813– 833. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1114 5- 019- 09963 - 6
Cormier, D. C., Bulut, O., McGrew, K. S., & Frison, J. (2016). The role of cattell–horn– carroll (CHC) cognitive
abilities in predicting writing achievement during the school age years. Psychology in the Schools, 53(8),
787– 803. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ pits. 21945
Costa, L. J., Green, M., Sideris, J., & Hooper, S. R. (2018). First- grade cognitive predictors of writing disabilities
in grades 2 through 4 elementary school students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(4), 351–362. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00222 19417 721182
Cuenca- Sanchez, Y., Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Kidd, J. K. (2012). Teaching students with emotional
and behavioral disorders to self- advocate through persuasive writing. Exceptionality, 20(2), 71–93. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09362 835. 2012. 669291
De Jong, P. F., Bitter, D. J., Van Setten, M., & Marinus, E. (2009). Does phonological recoding occur during silent
reading, and is it necessary for orthographic learning? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104(3),
267–282.
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 135–168 .
Diken, I. H. (2010). Özel Eğitime Gereksinimi Olan Öğrenciler ve Özel Eğitim. Pegem Akademi.
Doug, R. (2019). Handwriting: Developing pupils' identity and cognitive skills. International Journal of Education
and Literacy Studies, 7(2), 177. https:// doi. org/ 10. 7575/ aiac. ijels.v. 7n. 2p. 177
Dragomir, I. A., & Niculescu, B. (2020). Different approaches to developing writing skills. Land Forces Academy
Review, 25(3), 201–206. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2478/ raft- 2020- 0024
Durgunoğlu, A. Y., & Öney, B. (1999). A cross- linguistic comparison of phonological awareness and word recog-
nition. Reading and Writing, 11(4), 281–299. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1023/A: 10080 93232622
Erden, G., Kurdoğlu, F., & Uslu, R. (2002). Development of grade level norms for reading speed and writing
errors of Turkish elementary school children. Turk Psikiyatri Dergisi Turkish Journal of Psychiatry, 13(1),
5–13.
Ergül, C., & Demir, E. (2017). Yayımlanmamış proje raporu. In SED indeks ebeveyn bilgi formu. [Unpublished
project report]. Ankara University.
Erhardt, R. P., & Duckman, R. H. (2005). Visual- perceptual- motor dysfunction and its effects on eye- hand co-
ordination and skill development. In M. B. Scheiman & M. J. Rouse (Eds.), Functional Visual Behaviour in
Children: An Occupational Therapy Guide to Evaluation and Treatment Options (pp 171–228).
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication,
32(4), 36 5 –3 8 7.
Friend, A., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Phonological spelling and reading deficits in children with spelling disabilities.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 12(1), 9 0 –105.
García, J. N., & Fidalgo, R. (2008). Writing self- efficacy changes after cognitive strategy intervention in students
with learning disabilities: The mediational role of gender in calibration. The Spanish Journal of Psychology,
11(2), 414 – 432 .
Gathercole, S. E. (2008). Working memory. In J. Byrne (Ed.), Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference,
2 (1st ed., pp. 33–51). Academic Press. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ b978- 01237 0509- 9. 00179 - 0
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference 17.0 update (10t h
ed.). Pearson.
Gilboa, Y., Josman, N., Fattal- Valevski, A., Toledano- Alhadef, H., & Rosenblum, S. (2010). The handwriting per-
formance of children with NF1. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31(4), 929– 935. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. ridd. 2010. 03. 005
Gillespie, A., & Graham, S. (2014). A meta- analysis of writing interventions for students with learning disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 80(4), 454–473. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00144 02914 527238
Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.
Graham, S. (2018). A revised writer(s)- within- community model of writing. Educational Psychologist, 53(4), 25 8 –
279. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00461 520. 2018. 1481406
Graham, S., Aitken, A. A., Hebert, M., Camping, A., Santangelo, T., Harris, K. R., Eustice, K., Sweet, J. D., & Ng,
C. (2021). Do children with reading difficulties experience writing difficulties? A Meta- Analysis. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 113 (8), 1481–1506. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ edu00 00643
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1997). It can be taught, but it does not develop naturally: Myths and realities in writing
instruction. School Psychology Review, 26(3), 414–424. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02796 015. 1997. 12085875
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2020). Writing and students with learning disabilities. In Handbook of educational
psychology and students with special needs (pp. 487–509). Routledge.
|
463
THE CASE OF TURKISH- SPEAKING CHILDREN
Gray, M. (2022). Recognising visual perception issues in people with learning disabilities. Learning Disability
Practice, 25(6), 34– 43. https:// doi. org/ 10. 7748/ ldp. 2023. e2202
Grewal, R. K., Vig, D., & Saini, S. (2014). Role of visual perception in improving quality of handwriting. Indian
Journal of Health & Wellbeing, 5(5), 532–537.
Gudwani, S., Mehta, M., Sagar, R., Behari, M., Narang, V., Dwivedi, S., Jagannathan, N. R., & Kumaran, S. S.
(2021). How perception and attention participate in reading skill? In bioRxiv (p. 2021). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1101/
2021. 06. 07. 447429
Harrison, D., Burkes, T. M., & Seiger, D. P. (2009). Handwriting examination: Meeting the challenges of science
and the law. Forensic Science Communications, 11(4), 1–13.
Hebert, M., Kearns, D. M., Hayes, J. B., Bazis, P. S., & Cooper, S. (2018). Why children with dyslexia struggle with
writing and how to help them. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 49(4), 843–863. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1044/ 2018_ lshss - dyslc - 18- 0024
Holopainen, L., Ahonen, T., & Lyytinen, H. (2001). Predicting delay in reading achievement in a highly transparent
language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(5), 401– 413 .
Hoorn, J. F. V., Maathuis, C. G. B., & Hadders- Algra, M. (2013). Neural correlates of paediatric dysgraphia.
Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 55, 65–68. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ dmcn. 12310
Hoover, T. M., Kubina, R. M., & Mason, L. H. (2012). Effects of self- regulated strategy development for POW+
TREE on high school students with learning disabilities. Exceptionality, 20(1), 20–38. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/
09362 835. 2012. 640903
Jiménez, E. C., Romeo, A., Zapata, L. P., Puig, M. S., Bustos- Valenzuela, P., Cañete, J., Casal, P. V., & Supèr,
H. (2020). Eye vergence responses in children with and without reading difficulties during a word detection
task. Vision Research, 169, 6 –11.
Kaldırım, A., & Tavşanlı, Ö. F. (2021). A thematic review of using digital teaching technologies in turkish language
teaching. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 4(2), 70– 95. https:// doi. org/ 10. 31681/
jetol. 898014
Kamran, L., Dehghani, Y., & Dehghani, M. (2023). Improving the executive functions of third to fifth graders with
learning disabilities through an expressive writing program: The case of working memory, planning/organiz-
ing, and cognitive flexibility. The American Journal of Psychology, 136(1), 33–45. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5406/
19 3 9 8 2 9 8 . 136.1. 0 3
Kayhan, E. (2010). Master thesis. In A validation study of the executive functioning inventory: Behavioral cor-
relates of executive functioning. Bogazici University.
Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writ-
ing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 57–71). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kim, Y. S. G., & Graham, S. (2022). Expanding the direct and indirect effects model of writing (DIEW): Reading–
writing relations, and dynamic relations as a function of measurement/dimensions of written composition.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(2), 215 –238.
Koppitz, A. (1964). The Bender gestalt test for young children. Grune and Stratton.
Koutsoftas, A. D., & Nicotera, D. (2023). How do intermediate grade students with and without language- based
learning disabilities use noun phrases in narrative writing? American Journal of Speech- Language Pathology,
32(4), 1620 –1632. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1044/ 2023_ ajslp - 22- 00331
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2020). The interplay between academic writing abilities of dutch undergraduate students,
a remedial writing programme, and academic achievement. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 24(10), 1474–1485. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13670 050. 2020. 1726280
Kurtz, E. A. (2006). Visual perception problems in children with AD/HD, autism, and other learning disabilities: A
guide for parents and professionals. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Lerner, J. W., & Johns, B. (2014). Learning disabilities and related disabilities: Strategies for success. Cengage
learning.
Lewis, G. (2001). Turkish grammar. Oxford University Press.
Lim, Y. (2022). Structural relationships among dual- earner parents' work- family conflict, co- parenting quality,
children's executive function difficulties, and school adjustment: An application of the actor- partner interde-
pendence model. Family and Environment Research, 60(4), 507–520. https:// doi. org/ 10. 6115/ fer. 2022. 034
Mackenzie, N. M., & Spokes, R. (2018). The why, who, what, when and how of handwriting instruction. Practical
Literacy, 23(1), 17–2 0.
Mantovani, S., Magro, R. R., Ribeiro, R. C. H. M., Marini, A. M., & Martins, M. R. I. (2021). Occurrence of reading
and writing cognitive processes and perception visual skills in students with visual dyslexia. Ocorrência dos
processos cognitivos de leitura e escrita e habilidades perceptovisuais em escolares com Dislexia visual.
CoDAS, 33(6), e20200209. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1590/ 2317- 1782/ 20202 020209
Méary, D., Chary, C., Palluel- Germain, R., & Orliaguet, J. P. (2005). Visual perception of writing and pointing
movements. Perception, 34(9), 1061–1067. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1068/ p3388
Mulchay, C., Wolff, M., & Ward, J. (2021). Test review of the Feifer assessment of writing (FAW). Journal of
Pediatric Neuropsychology, 7(4), 204–208. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s4081 7- 021- 00112 - y
464
|
ALT I N DAĞ and SÜMER
Murai, Y., & Yotsumoto, Y. (2016). Timescale- and sensory modality- dependency of the central tendency of time
perception. PLoS One, 11(7), e0158921. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 0158921
Oddsdóttir, R., Ragnarsdóttir, H., & Skúlason, S. (2020). The effect of transcription skills, text generation, and
self- regulation on icelandic children's text writing. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 34(2),
391– 416. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1114 5- 020- 10074 - w
OECD. (2021). Economic survey of the European Union. OECD Publishing.
Olive, T., Favart, M., Beauvais, C., & Beauvais, L. (2009). Children's cognitive effort and fluency in writing: Effects
of genre and of handwriting automatisation. Learning and Instruction, 19(4), 299–308. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. learn instr uc. 2008. 05. 005
Olson, C. L. (1979). Practical considerations in choosing a MANOVA test statistic: A rejoinder to Stevens.
Psychological Bulletin, 86, 1350–1352.
Pourfaraman, M., & Taher, M. (2022). The effectiveness of visual skill- based computer games on visual- auditory-
spatial perception and reading tracking speed of students with special learning disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 10(2), 200–211. https:// doi. org/ 10. 32598/ jld. 10.2. 1
Raof, N. R., Binti, A ., & Tahar, M. M. (2023). Factors that affect students with learning disabilities inability to master
writing skills. Inclusive Education, 1(2), 231–342. https:// doi. org/ 10. 57142/ inclu sion. v1i2. 23
Ratzon, N. Z., Efraim, D., & Bart, O. (2007). A short- term graphomotor program for improving writing readiness
skills of first- grade students. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(4), 39 9 – 4 05.
Re, A. M., De Vita, F., Cornoldi, C., & Schmidt, S. (2023). Copy skills and writing abilities in children with and
without specific learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 56(5), 410– 420. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/
00222 19423 1157089
Rietdijk, S., Janssen, T., Weijen, D. V., Bergh, H. V. D., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2017). Improving writing in primary
schools through a comprehensive writing program. Journal of Writing Research, 9(2), 173–225. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 17239/ jowr- 2017. 09. 02. 04
Rodríguez, C., Torrance, M., Betts, L., Cerezo, R., & García, T. (2020). Effects of ADHD on writing composition
product and process in school- age students. Journal of Attention Disorders, 24(12), 173 5 –174 5. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1177/ 10870 54717 707048
Salas, N., & Silvente, S. (2020). The role of executive functions and transcription skills in writing: A cross- sectional
study across 7 years of schooling. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 33(4), 877–905. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1114 5- 019- 09979 - y
Sanghavi, R., & Kelkar, R. (2005). Visual- motor integration and learning- disabled children. The Indian Journal of
Occupational Therapy, 37(2), 33 –38.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition.
Advances in Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, 142–175.
Semeraro, C., Coppola, G., Cassibba, R., & Lucangeli, D. (2019). Teaching of cursive writing in the first year of
primary school: Effect on reading and writing skills. PLoS One, 14(2), e0209978. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/
journ al. pone. 0209978
Sheronovna, A. S. (2022). The significance of writing skill.
Siddiqui, K. (2013). Heuristics for sample size determination in multivariate statistical techniques. World Applied
Sciences Journal, 27(2), 285–287. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5829/ idosi. wasj. 2013. 27. 02. 889
Sittiprapaporn, P. (2020). Electroencephalographic changes as neuroscience- based cognitive skill training pro-
gram. Asian Journal of Medical Sciences, 11(1), 63–68. https:// doi. org/ 10. 312 6/ ajms. v11i1. 26527
Spier, T. E., & Pytleski, P. D. (2022). Literacy, curriculum, and pedagogies: Considerations for anthropologists
teaching first- year composition. Teaching Anthropology, 11(2), 48–58. https:// doi. org/ 10. 22582/ ta. v11i2.
659
Stevens, J. (1979). Comment on olson: Choosing a test statistic in multivariate analysis of variance. Psychological
Bulletin, 86, 355–360.
Swanson, H. L., & Hsieh, C. J. (2009). Reading disabilities in adults: A selective meta- analysis of the literature.
Review of Educational Research, 79(4), 1362–1390. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3102/ 00346 54309 350931
Swanson, H. L., & Sachse- Lee, C. (2001). A subgroup analysis of working memory in children with read-
ing disabilities: Domain- general or domain- specific deficiency? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(3),
249–263.
Tarchi, C., Ruffini, C., & Pecini, C. (2021). The contribution of executive functions when reading multiple texts: A
systematic literature review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 716463. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2021. 716463
Taverna, L., Tremolada, M., Tosetto, B., Dozza, L., & Renata, Z. S. (2020). Impact of psycho- educational activities
on visual- motor integration, fine motor skills and name writing among first graders: A kinematic pilot study.
Children, 7(4), 27. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ child ren70 40027
Thorell, L. B., & Nyberg, L. (2008). The childhood executive functioning inventory (CHEXI): A new rating in-
strument for parents and teachers. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33, 536–552. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/
87565 6408 0 2101516
|
465
THE CASE OF TURKISH- SPEAKING CHILDREN
Torres, J. T. (2018). I see therefore I think: A cognitive perspective on learning how to write through visual media.
In Visual imagery, metadata, and multimodal literacies across the curriculum (pp. 62–76). IGI Global.
Tressoldi, P. E., Stella, G., & Faggella, M. (2001). The development of reading speed in Italians with dyslexia: A
longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(5), 414 – 417.
Vernet, M., Bellocchi, S., Leibnitz, L., Chaix, Y., & Ducrot, S. (2022). Predicting future poor readers from pre-
reading visual skills: A longitudinal study. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 11 (3), 480–494. https:// doi. org/
10. 1080/ 21622 965. 2021. 1895790
Walker, B., Shippen, M. E., Alberto, P. A., Houchins, D. E., & Cihak, D. F. (2005). Using the expressive writing
program to improve the writing skills of high school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice, 20(3), 175–183. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1540- 5826. 2005. 00131. x
Wallen, M., Duff, S., Goyen, T. A., & Froude, E. (2013). Respecting the evidence: Responsible assessment and ef-
fective inter vention for children with handwriting difficulties. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 60(5),
366–369. ht t p s : // d o i. org / 10. 1111/ 14 4 0 - 16 3 0 . 12 0 4 5
Yeung, P., Ho, C. S., Chan, D. W., & Chung, K. K. H. (2016). The role of transcription skills and oral language skills
in chinese writing among children in upper elementary grades. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 38(1), 211–231.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ s0142 71641 6000163
Yuan, D., Li, L., & Wu, X. (2020). The reciprocal relationship between handwriting fluency and spelling accuracy
in chinese: A longitudinal study. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 620. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2020. 00620
How to cite this article: Altindağ, K. Ö. & Sümer, D. H. M. (2025). The role of visual
perception and executive functions on writing skills with learning disabilities: The case of
Turkish- speaking children. British Educational Research Journal, 51, 444–465. https://
doi.org/10.1002/berj.4072
Content uploaded by Halime Miray Sümer Dodur
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Halime Miray Sümer Dodur on Oct 17, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.