View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Relationships between Linguistic Knowledge, Linguistic Awareness, and Argumentative Writing among Upper Elementary Bilingual Students

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Relationships between Linguistic Knowledge, Linguistic Awareness, and Argumentative Writing among Upper Elementary Bilingual Students
Language: English
Authors: Qun Yu (ORCID 0000-0001-8471-6476), C. Patrick Proctor, Ehri Ryu, Rebecca D. Silverman
Source: Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2025 38(8):2317-2339.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 23
Publication Date: 2025
Sponsoring Agency: Institute of Education Sciences (ED)
Contract Number: R305A140114
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Elementary School Students, Bilingual Students, Persuasive Discourse, Writing (Composition), Linguistics, Language Skills, Lexicology, Morphology (Languages), Syntax, Spanish, Portuguese, English, Knowledge Level
DOI: 10.1007/s11145-024-10592-x
ISSN: 0922-4777
1573-0905
Abstract: Argumentation is a critical genre of writing that elementary school students are expected to develop, but little is known about how different domains of language contribute to argumentative writing. To explore this, we identified two domains of language: linguistic knowledge (lexical, morphological, and syntactic skills) and linguistic awareness (ability to identify and manipulate discourse- and text-level features). We worked with 119 fourth and fifth grade Spanish- and Portuguese-English bilingual students in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions of the United States. We asked whether students' linguistic knowledge served as a direct predictor of argumentative writing, or as an indirect predictor of argumentative writing, mediated by linguistic awareness. We explored this question with two writing outcomes: students' argumentation and counter-argumentation. Controlling for orthographic knowledge, essay length, and English learner status, structural equation modeling revealed that students' linguistic knowledge predicted their argumentative writing indirectly through linguistic awareness, but not directly. Neither the direct nor indirect effects structural model predicted students' counter-argumentation. Our results extend theory on school-related writing tasks by differentiating between linguistic knowledge and linguistic awareness in understanding bilingual students' written argumentation, with implications for instruction.
Abstractor: As Provided
IES Funded: Yes
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1489599
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGiEHXwQq64iiajUI3nXo0aAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDO5y7yUXyaTF5A-ybgIBEICBm45xYasRI7vtfb5zNL8lgQvOaRHMJX_XA9ZuBw1zO6EKQ_eWW_onnEuRA4pGkeSGdIu-ry9mKTRm2CzXrjJMktWMzfjIJXsB-fhIf-cKc9NSvyH371yOsL4-JWiRHTigGJboCf824d4bDR4BYfJM5x3TLbK7rDApONIxPrbRIut_UJoRm6NmNbVWGzfdcf2KuqCtuo99FMWhOjKW
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0188474682;2ap01oct.25;2025Oct08.05:51;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0188474682-1">Relationships between linguistic knowledge, linguistic awareness, and argumentative writing among upper elementary bilingual students </title> <p>Argumentation is a critical genre of writing that elementary school students are expected to develop, but little is known about how different domains of language contribute to argumentative writing. To explore this, we identified two domains of language: linguistic knowledge (lexical, morphological, and syntactic skills) and linguistic awareness (ability to identify and manipulate discourse- and text-level features). We worked with 119 fourth and fifth grade Spanish- and Portuguese-English bilingual students in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions of the United States. We asked whether students' linguistic knowledge served as a direct predictor of argumentative writing, or as an indirect predictor of argumentative writing, mediated by linguistic awareness. We explored this question with two writing outcomes: students' argumentation and counter-argumentation. Controlling for orthographic knowledge, essay length, and English learner status, structural equation modeling revealed that students' linguistic knowledge predicted their argumentative writing indirectly through linguistic awareness, but not directly. Neither the direct nor indirect effects structural model predicted students' counter-argumentation. Our results extend theory on school-related writing tasks by differentiating between linguistic knowledge and linguistic awareness in understanding bilingual students' written argumentation, with implications for instruction.</p> <p>Keywords: Argumentative writing; Linguistic knowledge; Linguistic awareness; Language; Communication and Culture Language Studies Linguistics Education Specialist Studies In Education</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0188474682-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Writing is a critical school competency, as it reflects learning, the ability to communicate, and is also a tool for building knowledge across content materials in school subjects (Bangert-Drowns et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref1">7</reflink>]; De Smedt et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref2">19</reflink>]; Graham et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref3">24</reflink>]). However, both writing instruction and student writing performance are concerning. Teachers report that they devote scant attention to teaching writing, and receive inadequate support and training in teaching writing (Graham, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref4">23</reflink>]). Further, many students struggle with writing, oftentimes due to the cultural and linguistic demands of "academic writing" (Snow & Uccelli, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref5">63</reflink>]), coupled with contextual and other learning factors that affect their performance in school and on standardized assessments (Graham, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref6">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>Among the various writing genres, argumentation is particularly challenging. Since the introduction of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) 15 years ago, argumentative writing has received strong emphasis alongside more traditional narrative and informational writing expectations (e.g., recounts, reports, and explanations; see Brisk, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref7">12</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref8">13</reflink>]), that also includes writing for discipline-specific purposes and audiences by the end of high school (National Governors Association [NGA] & Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref9">44</reflink>]). Argumentative writing is a linguistically and cognitively demanding genre that many students find difficult, specifically due to the need to generate arguments using text and background knowledge as sources of information (Brisk, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref10">12</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref11">13</reflink>]). Relatedly, students' written arguments are usually shorter and less well developed compared to narrative and informational writing in the elementary school grades (Applebee et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref12">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>Argumentative writing as a genre may be more challenging because it requires a stronger degree of linguistic awareness than its informational and narrative counterparts. Narrative and informational writing (recounts, reports, and explanations) surely require general linguistic knowledge (i.e., command of noun and verb groups to retell events as they occurred), but argumentative writing additionally requires specific linguistic awareness because "the author needs to understand how language choices are going to be effective in persuading the audience and showing the writer's voice (authoritative, entertaining, familiar, etc.)" (M.E. Brisk, personal communication, August 31, 2024).</p> <p>Furthermore, language is not just important for writing, it is also important in schooling more broadly, particularly because linguistic diversity continues to increase in U.S. schools. For example, the Migration Policy Institute ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref13">42</reflink>]) recently estimated that 33 percent of U.S. children under age 9 reside in homes where a language other than English is spoken. The National Education Association ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref14">45</reflink>]) revealed that, by 2025, 25 percent of students in U.S. classrooms will be labeled "English learners" by their school districts.</p> <p>Given the linguistic diversity of U.S. schools, the importance ascribed to argumentative writing by the CCSS, the linguistic demands required to produce it, and teachers' reported lack of preparation to teach writing, we wondered about the relationships between linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, morphology, syntax), linguistic awareness (ability to identify and manipulate discourse and text structures), and argumentative writing among bilingual writers. Specifically, we asked, <emph>Among a group of bilingual fourth and fifth grade writers, does linguistic awareness mediate the relationship between linguistic knowledge and argumentative writing?</emph></p> <hd id="AN0188474682-3">Developmental models of writing</hd> <p>The two models of writing that guided current study were the Simple View of Writing (SVW) and the Direct and Indirect Effects Model of Writing (DIEW). The SVW proposes that fluent writing consists of two critical skills: transcription and ideation (Berninger et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref15">11</reflink>]; Juel et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref16">27</reflink>]). Researchers have operationalized transcription as cognitive and physical processes involved in creating written representations of text (McCutchen, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref17">40</reflink>], p. 15), i.e., handwriting/keyboarding, in predicting writing (Berninger et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref18">10</reflink>]; Juel et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref19">27</reflink>]; Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref20">32</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref21">28</reflink>]; McCutchen, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref22">40</reflink>]). Ideation includes idea generation, word choice, content development, text structure, and genre knowledge (Berninger et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref23">10</reflink>]). When Juel et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref24">27</reflink>]) investigated the SVW, they identified key components of spelling, such as phonological awareness and print knowledge, and explored how these components influenced writing. They discovered that both phonological awareness and print knowledge were directly linked to phonological decoding skills, which then significantly impacted children's spelling abilities. This spelling ability, in turn, had a direct effect on writing proficiency. Their findings indicated that multiple component skills are essential for developing transcription skills such as spelling, with some skills having direct influences and others having indirect influences.</p> <p>As an expansion, Kim and Schatschneider ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref25">35</reflink>]) operationalized text generation as discourse-level language, including foundational language skills and higher-order cognitive skills, and further examined their relationships with writing. For novice writers in elementary schools, language skills (vocabulary and grammatical knowledge) are critical to writing (Berninger et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref26">10</reflink>]; Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref27">32</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref28">28</reflink>]; McCutchen, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref29">40</reflink>]). Writers need to generate ideas in "pre-verbal forms"' (Kim & Schatschneider, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref30">35</reflink>], p. 36) and to then encode those ideas in linguistic forms using appropriate words to produce a logical and coherent text. Linguistic knowledge features that may be implicated in this process include vocabulary, morphological and syntactical skill (Apel & Apel, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref31">3</reflink>]). Empirical evidence has also confirmed the contribution of linguistic knowledge, operationalized as vocabulary (Coker, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref32">16</reflink>]; Crosson & Lesaux, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref33">18</reflink>]; Olinghouse & Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref34">47</reflink>]), morphological awareness (Berninger & Abbott, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref35">9</reflink>]; McCutchen et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref36">41</reflink>]), and syntactical skill (Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref37">32</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref38">28</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref39">31</reflink>]; Olinghouse, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref40">46</reflink>]), to writing (e.g. Kim & Schatschneider, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref41">35</reflink>]; Shanahan & Lomax, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref42">59</reflink>]). Linguistic knowledge has also been shown to be particularly important for writing productivity (i.e., the overall amount) in writing (Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref43">31</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref44">33</reflink>]; Olinghouse, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref45">46</reflink>]). Although it is acknowledged that productivity in writing does not invariably indicate the quality of the writing, it nonetheless serves as a pertinent metric for assessing students' overall writing proficiency, particularly within the confines of timed writing assessments.</p> <p>Linguistic awareness, in contrast to linguistic knowledge, reflects an understanding of, and ability to manipulate language in the service of cognitive representations of comprehension and production (Kim & Schatschneider, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref46">35</reflink>]; van Dijk & Kintsch, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref47">71</reflink>]). This includes strategies of understanding the situation model (the theme of a given text), which builds on the text base (content of a given topic) and is represented by the surface code (linguistic input of the text, such as words and phrases) (Kim & Schatschneider, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref48">35</reflink>], p. 3). These three levels of cognitive representations of discourse knowledge also require connecting propositions and background knowledge to infer meanings and establish text coherence (Kim & Schatschneider, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref49">35</reflink>]; Kintsch, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref50">36</reflink>]; van Dijk & Kintsch, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref51">71</reflink>]). With a particular focus on school academic discourse, we conceptualize these cognitive representations of school academic discourse as <emph>linguistic awareness</emph>, which not only aligns with the cognitive representations amplified in DIEW, but also specifies linguistic demands of school disciplinary requirements.</p> <hd id="AN0188474682-4">Linguistic awareness and core analytic language skills</hd> <p>Despite similarities shared by writing practices, school-relevant writing tasks (e.g. argumentative writing) are more structured, formal, and designed to meet specific educational objectives. Uccelli and her colleagues (Anstrom et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref52">2</reflink>]; Bailey et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref53">6</reflink>]; Barr et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref54">8</reflink>]; Phillips Galloway & Uccelli, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref55">49</reflink>]; Phillips Galloway et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref56">48</reflink>]; Scarcella, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref57">58</reflink>]; Snow & Uccelli, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref58">63</reflink>]) developed the Core Analytic Language Skills (CALS) framework that identifies "high-utility language resources of analytical discourses" (Uccelli, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref59">66</reflink>], p. 14) for monolingual and multilingual learners at school. CALS is comprised of seven constructs: 1) <emph>organizing text</emph> (familiarity with the text structure, e.g., claims and conclusions); 2) <emph>connecting ideas</emph> (familiarity with connectives, e.g., "however"); 3) <emph>tracking participants</emph> (understanding the use of personal pronounces, e.g., "their"); 4) <emph>interpreting writers' viewpoint</emph>s (understanding epistemic stance markers, e.g., "it is unlikely", p. 16); 5) <emph>understanding metalinguistic vocabulary</emph> (the ability to manipulate language itself, e.g., abstract concepts); 6) <emph>unpacking dense information</emph> (understanding vocabulary or/and sentences with multiple components, e.g., counter-argumentation); and 7) <emph>identifying analytical discourse</emph> (e.g., being able to identify analytical text genres).</p> <p>Specifically with argumentative writing, both the cognitive representations of discourse comprehension (van Dijk & Kintsch, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref60">71</reflink>]) in DIEW (Kim & Schatschneider, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref61">35</reflink>]) and Uccelli's CALS framework converge in their emphasis on the cognitive and linguistic processes involved in understanding and producing discourse. For instance, both frameworks highlight the necessity of structuring and organizing text, connecting ideas logically, and using precise language for different audiences. The CALS framework builds on the foundational principles of discourse comprehension outlined by van Dijk and Kintsch ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref62">71</reflink>]), providing a more targeted approach to developing the specific language skills necessary for academic success.</p> <p>Though intertwined, CALS differentiates itself from linguistic knowledge in many ways. An illuminating longitudinal study (Uccelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref63">68</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref64">69</reflink>]) emphasized the pivotal role of a child's vocabulary and decontextualized language skills, i.e. talking about past and future events (Snow, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref65">62</reflink>]), as substantial predictors of CALS proficiency in seventh grade students after controlling for socioeconomic status and component language indicators. The constellation of analytical language resources represented by CALS builds on the linguistic knowledge (i.e. vocabulary, morphology and syntactical skill) that were learned in earlier years. For example, the skill of unpacking dense information that is included in CALS requires learners to employ their linguistic knowledge to comprehend literal meanings and to break dense information down into more manageable chunks. In this regard, we argue that linguistic knowledge (i.e. vocabulary, morphology and syntactical skill) may serve as precursor to a more nuanced linguistic awareness needed in later school years for academic purposes (Uccelli, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref66">66</reflink>]; Uccelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref67">68</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref68">69</reflink>]). In summary, linguistic awareness, as reflected in the CALS framework, extends beyond individual language components and focuses on integrating language resources across different disciplines to enhance students' ability to comprehend and produce complex text.</p> <hd id="AN0188474682-5">The challenge of argumentative writing</hd> <p>Argumentative writing has become increasingly ubiquitous as a consequence of the K − 5 writing standards codified in the Common Core State Standards (National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers; henceforth, CCSS, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref69">44</reflink>]) which outline a developmental progression for argumentative writing from Grades 1 to 5. Beginning with simple opinion pieces in first grade, students are expected to progress to more sophisticated argumentative writing by the fifth grade, when they are must articulate clear opinions, organize ideas logically, support their arguments with evidence, link opinions to reasons using appropriate language conventions effectively (e.g., by using "consequently" or "specifically"), and to provide a conclusion.</p> <p>In addition, argumentative writing tasks have been used as the genre for assessing writing proficiency in middle school (College Board, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref70">17</reflink>]; Salahu-Din et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref71">56</reflink>]). However, students' written arguments are usually shorter and less well developed compared to their narrative and expository writing in the elementary school grades (Applebee et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref72">4</reflink>]). This is due, at least in part, to the need the writer must adopt a stance, present evidence and reasoning to support it, and also take on potential counter-arguments and rebuttals. Thus, in the ideation phase, argumentative writing entails multiple cognitive and linguistic skills, including developing individual ideas based on a given topic, considering multiple perspectives, and generating coherent texts using connecting words.</p> <p>To better understand student performance in argumentative writing, researchers have attempted to assess the quality of argumentative writing or overall persuasiveness using researcher-developed (e.g., Ferretti & Lewis, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref73">20</reflink>]; Ferretti et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref74">22</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref75">21</reflink>]; Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref76">29</reflink>]) or standardized (Kim, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref77">30</reflink>]; Kim & Park, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref78">34</reflink>]; Kim & Schatschneider, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref79">35</reflink>]; McCutchen, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref80">39</reflink>]; NAEP, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref81">43</reflink>]; Silverman et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref82">60</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref83">61</reflink>]; Stavans et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref84">64</reflink>]) holistic scores. Holistic scores are meant to capture overall writing quality, but more precise information about the arguments themselves (e.g. specific uses of evidence, and reasoning) is necessarily missing from such scoring approaches.</p> <p>In contrast, Reznitskaya et al. ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref85">53</reflink>]) developed a model for argumentative schema (AS), which highlighted the mental internalization of argumentation and its influence on student writing. In line with Toulmin's ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref86">65</reflink>]) original work on argument structure, Reznitskaya et al., ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref87">54</reflink>], p. 32) identified the unique functions of six argument elements, namely "position, reasons, grounds and elaboration, backing, modifiers, counter-arguments, and rebuttals" to describe argument moves in dialogues and in written compositions. This approach to analyzing students' written argumentation has been widely adopted by researchers in education (Rapanta et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref88">52</reflink>]), as it provides an operationalized tool for the in-depth analysis of argument structures as opposed to a single holistic score.</p> <p>There are three benefits to using a fine-grained argument coding scheme. First, counting the frequency of argument structures (e.g. reasons, counter-arguments, and rebuttals) provides an operationalized tool for researchers to quantify the characteristics of argument elements. Second, the coding scheme provides insights into students' abilities to apply their knowledge of argumentation in writing. For example, a 0 score for reasons indicates that the students did not provide logical grounds to support their claims. Finally, various argument elements (claims, reasons, elaborations, and conclusions) that are unique to the argumentative writing genre are expected to develop during the elementary years, whereas other elements (opposing ideas and rebuttals) are not required to be fully developed until high school (CCSS, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref89">44</reflink>]). In the current study, we developed a six-dimensional coding scheme to evaluate students' argument productivity separately by drawing on frequency counts (see Measures section) in students' argument writing.</p> <hd id="AN0188474682-6">The present study</hd> <p>The goal of the present study was to investigate relations between linguistic knowledge (i.e. vocabulary, morphological and syntactical skill), linguistic awareness (ability to comprehend and manipulate text and discourse structures), and argumentative writing for elementary school bilingual writers. We were specifically interested in whether linguistic knowledge directly contributed to argumentative writing, or whether its effects were mediated by linguistic awareness (or both). We asked: <emph>Among a group of bilingual fourth and fifth grade writers, does linguistic awareness mediate the relationship between linguistic knowledge and argumentative writing?</emph> As shown in Model 1a in Fig. 1, we propose the direct effects of linguistic knowledge predicting written argumentation along with linguistic awareness. Model 1b in Fig. 1 adds the indirect effect of linguistic knowledge on written argumentation via linguistic awareness.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 The structural equation path models for testing the relationships between language skills, core analytical language skills and argumentative writing outcomes according to the Simple View of Writing model when controlling for orthographic knowledge, word length and EL Status. 1a No mediation model, 1b complete mediation model</p> <hd id="AN0188474682-7">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188474682-8">Context</hd> <p>Data for this study were collected from a larger language-based literacy intervention that was designed for bi/multilingual students among upper elementary school students (see Proctor et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref90">51</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref91">50</reflink>]; Silverman et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref92">61</reflink>]). Data used for present study come from the business-as-usual control group (<emph>n</emph> = <emph>119</emph>) of the larger quasi-experimental study with 239 students assigned to either treatment (<emph>n</emph> = <emph>120</emph>) or control (<emph>n</emph> = <emph>119</emph>). The linguistic knowledge assessments (and control variables noted in Fig. 1) were collected in the fall of the academic year, while the linguistic awareness and writing data were collected in the spring of that same academic year.</p> <hd id="AN0188474682-9">Participants</hd> <p>All participating students (<emph>n</emph> = <emph>119</emph>) in the present study were bilingual (Spanish–English or Portuguese-English) fourth and fifth grade students. A total of 8 schools across two locations (Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic) in the United States, with four schools per location, participated in the study. Among all participants, 42% (<emph>n</emph> = <emph>50</emph>) were designated English learners (ELs) while 41% of the participants (<emph>n</emph> = <emph>49</emph>) were formerly classified as ELs by their schools (see Table 1). Most of the participants (<emph>n</emph> = <emph>87</emph>) were 4th graders with the remainder (<emph>n</emph> = <emph>32</emph>) in 5th grade. Five out of 8 schools provided instruction in English only, 2 schools provided bilingual instruction in Spanish and English, and one provided bilingual instruction in Portuguese and English.</p> <p>Table 1 School conditions of school site, instructional languages, proportion of English learners, and proportion of bilingual students and sample breakdown of participating students</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Characteristic</p></th><th align="left" colspan="4"><p>School setting</p></th><th align="left" colspan="4"><p>Sample breakdown</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Site</p></th><th align="left"><p>Languages</p></th><th align="left"><p>% EL</p></th><th align="left"><p>% Bilingual</p></th><th align="left"><p>Total <italic>n</italic> (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Female <italic>n</italic> (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Gr 4 n (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Gr 5 n (%)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>School 1</p></td><td align="left"><p>NE</p></td><td align="left"><p>Spanish–English</p></td><td align="left"><p>43.8</p></td><td align="left"><p>59.5</p></td><td align="left"><p>21 (17.6)</p></td><td align="left"><p>11 (52.4)</p></td><td align="left"><p>13 (61.9)</p></td><td align="left"><p>8 (38.1)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 2</p></td><td align="left"><p>NE</p></td><td align="left"><p>Spanish–English</p></td><td align="left"><p>43.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>60.7</p></td><td align="left"><p>9 (8)</p></td><td align="left"><p>5 (55.6)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2 (22.2)</p></td><td align="left"><p>7 (77.8)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>NE</p></td><td align="left"><p>English</p></td><td align="left"><p>59.4</p></td><td align="left"><p>81.4</p></td><td align="left"><p>10 (8.4)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3 (30)</p></td><td align="left"><p>1 (10)</p></td><td align="left"><p>9 (90)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 4</p></td><td align="left"><p>NE</p></td><td align="left"><p>Portuguese–English</p></td><td align="left"><p>58.5</p></td><td align="left"><p>80.1</p></td><td align="left"><p>11 (9.2)</p></td><td align="left"><p>7 (63.6)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3 (27.3)</p></td><td align="left"><p>8 (72.7)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 5</p></td><td align="left"><p>MA</p></td><td align="left"><p>English</p></td><td align="left"><p>54.6</p></td><td align="left"><p>NA</p></td><td align="left"><p>7 (5.9)</p></td><td align="left"><p>1 (14.3)</p></td><td align="left"><p>7 (100)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0 (0)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 6</p></td><td align="left"><p>MA</p></td><td align="left"><p>English</p></td><td align="left"><p>58.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>NA</p></td><td align="left"><p>27 (22.7)</p></td><td align="left"><p>11 (40.7)</p></td><td align="left"><p>27 (100)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0 (0)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 7</p></td><td align="left"><p>MA</p></td><td align="left"><p>English</p></td><td align="left"><p>60.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>NA</p></td><td align="left"><p>21 (17.6)</p></td><td align="left"><p>11 (52.4)</p></td><td align="left"><p>21 (100)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0 (0)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>School 8</p></td><td align="left"><p>MA</p></td><td align="left"><p>English</p></td><td align="left"><p>59.9</p></td><td align="left"><p>NA</p></td><td align="left"><p>13 (10.9)</p></td><td align="left"><p>5 (38.5)</p></td><td align="left"><p>13 (100)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0 (0)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Totals</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>54.7 (7.2)</p></td><td align="left"><p>70.4 (11.9)</p></td><td align="left"><p>199 (100)</p></td><td align="left"><p>54 (45)</p></td><td align="left"><p>87 (71)</p></td><td align="left"><p>32 (29)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The MA schools did not collect data on the % Bilingual in their school populations and are thus labeled "Not Applicable" (NA) <emph>NE</emph> Northeast; <emph>MA</emph> Mid-Atlantic; <emph>EL</emph> English learner</p> <hd id="AN0188474682-10">Data sources</hd> <p> <emph>Linguistic Knowledge.</emph> There were three sources of data for the linguistic knowledge latent variable: Vocabulary, morphology, and syntax. For vocabulary, the Woodcock–Muñoz Language Survey–Revised (WMLS-R; Woodcock et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref93">72</reflink>]) picture vocabulary Subtest. The test consists of seven independently administered subtests (e.g. vocabulary, letter-word identification and dictation, etc.). We employed the English version picture vocabulary subtest (a total of 59 test items) in the present study. The picture vocabulary test consists of pictured items arranged by increasing difficulty and presented to the participant in sets of six pictures. Researchers showed the picture (e.g. A picture of a dolphin) and pointed to the item and asked the students (What kind of animal is this?) to verbally identify the item. Students were given 0 for no response or incorrect response, 1 for correct response. Standard scores (<emph>M</emph> = 100, <emph>SD</emph> = 15) were used for this analysis. The Cronbach's alpha for age 8- and 11-year-old students are reported as 0.90 and 0.92 (Woodcock et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref94">72</reflink>]), respectively.</p> <p>For morphology, the Extract the Base measure (Anglin, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref95">1</reflink>]; August et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref96">5</reflink>]; Carlisle, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref97">14</reflink>]) was a group-administered test and was employed as a measure of derivational morphology knowledge. When conducting the test, RAs read target words (e.g., "lovely") and corresponding sentences (e.g., "I _____ my family"). Test-takers are asked to extract the base word from a derived word (e.g., love from lovely) and write down their responses. Each item is scored 0 for an incorrect response, 1 for a misspelled but phonologically correct response (e.g., "lov" instead of "love"), or 2 for a correct response. To control for spelling ability, we scored on a scale of 0 or 1, where 1 was given for correct responses regardless of spelling. The Rasch-based reliability was reported as 0.98 (August et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref98">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>For syntax, the Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language (CASL; Carrow-Woolfolk, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref99">15</reflink>]) grammatically judgment subtest tests students' ability to identify and correct grammar-related errors (e.g., irregular forms, pronouns). In this independent administered test, students were asked to identify and correct the grammatical errors, if any, in a sentence that was orally presented by researchers. Students gain 1 point for successfully identifying whether there is a grammatical error in a sentence (I am crying/ His goes to school) and gain an additional point for successfully correcting the error without changing the original meaning of the sentence (He goes to school). Students receive 1 point as maximum for identifying a grammatically correct sentence. The intraclass correlation coefficient is 0.91 for ages 8–11.</p> <p> <emph>Linguistic Awareness.</emph> The Core Analytic Language Skills Instrument (CALS-I) (Uccelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref100">67</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref101">70</reflink>]) is a group administered paper-based assessment. The CALS-I for grades 4 through 6 included 49 items that were grouped into six tasks (α = 0.90). The items that were scored are rescaled between 0 and 1 so all items were equally weighted in estimating the total score. The CALS-I raw scores ranged from 0 to 49. Using Rasch item response theory analysis, factor scores were generated for the CALS-I which captured seven aspects of linguistic awareness: text structure, connectives, personal pronouns, epistemic stance markers, metalinguistic awareness, complex vocabulary and analytical text genres. Below are detailed descriptions and examples of each assessed aspect as explained in Proctor et al., ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref102">51</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref103">50</reflink>], p.109).</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Connective words: students select the correct connective (<emph>a. But; b. Then; c. So; d. Also)</emph> and fill in the blank (<emph>Kate wears sneakers, ___ Jim wears sandals</emph>);</item> <p></p> <item> Track references: Students were asked to choose the correct noun <emph>(a. water; b. heat; c. land)</emph> that "<emph>it</emph>" refers to in the sentence "<emph>Water heats up more slowly than land. It also cools down more slowly than land.</emph>";</item> <p></p> <item> Argumentative text structure: Students must reorder the sentences in an argumentative essay using the key words such as <emph>one reason, another reason, that is why, for example</emph> and <emph>but</emph>;</item> <p></p> <item> Understand word parts: Students use the correct form of <emph>driver</emph> to complete the sentence "<emph>Children are too young to ___."</emph>;</item> <p></p> <item> Complex sentence structure: students choose a picture that reflects an oral description;</item> <p></p> <item> Formal versus informal register: Students decide which of two definitions of the same word is more appropriate for adults or children;</item> <p></p> <item> Interpret discourse markers: this task assessed students' understanding of the speaker's level of certainly using "<emph>sure</emph>" or "<emph>unsure</emph>" markers in a given conversation;</item> <p></p> <item> Infer text meaning: students are assessed on whether they understand the author's purpose of a given response (i.e., was the response a<emph>. an excuse; b. an example; c. a definition; d. an exaggeration</emph>) to a claim (e.g., claim = "<emph>Students need recess to play and relax at school.";</emph> response = <emph>Yes, at recess we play games like tag, soccer or basketball"</emph>)</item> </ulist> <p> <emph>Argumentative Writing.</emph> "The Pinewood Derby" story (also used by Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref104">32</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref105">28</reflink>]; Reznitskaya et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref106">53</reflink>]; and Zhang et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref107">73</reflink>]) was used in spring to prompt students' argumentative writing. Research assistants distributed a copy of the story to each test-taker and read the story aloud for students. The story is about two boys, Jack and Thomas, who participate in a Pinewood Derby race competition. Participants are expected to make their own cars in this race competition. Jack learns that Thomas, who has few friends in class, cheated by seeking help from an adult to make his car, which ends up winning the race. The writing prompt is given: "In the next few pages, write whether or not you think Jack should tell on Thomas". Students were asked to present reasons and evidence to support their claim as well as thinking about opposing perspectives. Students were given 25 min, which has been shown to be sufficient time in the pilot studies conducted by Reznitskaya et al. ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref108">53</reflink>]), to plan, write, and finalize the response.</p> <p>A researcher-developed coding scheme was applied to analyze students' written responses. Using Reznitskaya et al. ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref109">54</reflink>]) as a guide, we designed a six-component coding scheme that included: Stance, Reasons, Elaboration, Opposing Ideas, Rebuttals, and Conclusion (See Table 2 for selected student examples). All students' writing samples were typed and anonymized, then chunked into the idea units (Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref110">38</reflink>], p. 71). Three coders were trained on using the coding scheme for the six categories. Each RA independently coded sets of 10 writing samples and addressed the discrepancies through group meetings until the third sets of essays when the interrater reliability of 0.80 was obtained. After this, coders independently coded the remaining writing samples. Stance was coded as 0 (none), 1 (weak), and 2 (strong). Conclusion was dichotomously coded as present (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref111">1</reflink>) or absent (0). Frequency counts were obtained for all other argument codes to be used in linear modeling.</p> <p>Table 2 Argumentative outcome coding scheme with student examples for each category</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Category</p></th><th align="left"><p>Examples from analytic sample</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Stance (0/1/2)</p></td><td align="left"><p>(0) Absent</p><p>(1) "I think he shoin't (shouldn't)."</p><p>(2) "I think Jack Should Tell on Thomas."</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Reasons (counts)</p></td><td align="left"><p>"Because it wasent fair for the other Kids"</p><p>"because everybody else followed the rules and Thomas did not"</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Elaboration (counts)</p></td><td align="left"><p>"because the other Kids had to bild their car all by themselves. It's unfair to the other kids even tho he lost in the race he still got help to bild his car and thats unfair."</p><p>"That means he was Cheating."</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Opposing ideas (counts)</p></td><td align="left"><p>"Even though Thomas painted the car and put stickers on the car"</p><p>"Some people might disagree with me. Because they might say that Thomas's family might not enough money so Thomas told his brother to do it. Or Thomas did not know how to make a car."</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Rebuttals (counts)</p></td><td align="left"><p>"It still doesn't count he is still cheating because his brother did all the car."</p><p>"If someone said that to me I will tell them that Thomas was cheating because he did not make the car by his self."</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Conclusion (0/1)</p></td><td align="left"><p>(0) Absent</p><p>(1) "In conclusion, that's why I think Jack shouldn't tell on Thomas."</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Control variables</emph>. We controlled for essay length (n of words) and English learner status (1 = EL, 0 = non-EL) in the final models. In addition, we controlled for orthographic knowledge as a proxy for transcription skill, as measured by the Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency (TSWRF, Mather et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref112">37</reflink>]) Form A. In the task, students are asked to draw a line between the boundaries of a line of letters with no spaces between them. Within the three-minute time period, test-takers were asked to recognize words as many as they can (e.g., dimhowbluefig would result in a divided chain of dim/how/blue/fig, Mather et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref113">37</reflink>], p. 3). Test–retest reliability estimates of 0.92 and alternate-form reliability for immediate and delayed as 0.86 were reported for Form A by publishers. A second indicator of transcription used was essay word length.</p> <hd id="AN0188474682-11">Statistical analyses</hd> <p>Structural equation modeling (SEM) using Lavaan packages in R studio (Rosseel, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref114">55</reflink>]) was used to answer our research question. We first tested the measurement models for linguistic knowledge and argumentative writing. Linguistic knowledge consisted of three measures: vocabulary, morphology and syntax. Argumentative writing, per findings previously reported (see Silverman et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref115">61</reflink>]), included reasons, elaborations and conclusions (see Fig. 2). Counter-argumentation included opposing ideas and rebuttals (see Fig. 3). Next, per Fig. 1, Models 1a and 1b, structural equation modeling assessed the direct and indirect (via lingusitic awareness) relations between linguistic knowledge and the two argumentative writing outcomes (argumentation and counter-argumentation). The measurement and structural equation models were assessed using multiple fit indices including chi-square value, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI) and standardized root mean square residuals (SRMR). The guidelines for evaluating the adequacy of fit as proposed by Hu and Bentler ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref116">26</reflink>]) are as follows: CFI value equals to or greater than 0.95, RMSEA values with the upper bound at or less than 0.08, and SRMR values equal to or less than 0.06. We used the default listwise deletion method in Lavaan packages in R studio which yielded a total of 107 participants in analysis. Thus, the small sample size warrants cautious interpretation of the results and discussion.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 CFA measurement model for language skills and argumentation constructs. Note. Model fit indices: Chi-square = 11.871, df = 8, p =..157, CFI =.961, RMSEA =.067, 90% CI [0.000, 0.142], SRMR =.067, AIC = 2948.63, BIC = 2983.37</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 CFA measurement model for language skills and counter-argumentation constructs. Chi-square = 6.625, df = 8, =.578, CFI = 1, RMSEA =.000, 90% CI [0.000, 0.100], SRMR =.045, AIC = 2650.57, BIC = 2685.31</p> <hd id="AN0188474682-12">Results</hd> <p>Means, standard deviations, and min–max values of all variables are presented in Table 3. The correlations are summarized in Table 4. On average, students produced more than 2 reasons (mean = 2.38, SD = 1.34) and at least 1 elaboration (mean = 1.38, SD = 1.14), whereas students produced less than 1 opposing idea (mean = 0.47, SD = 0.9), rebuttal (mean = 0.22, SD = 0.49) and conclusion (mean = 0.26, SD = 0.44). Linguistic awareness (CALS-I) was significantly correlated with linguistic knowledge variables (vocabulary, syntax and morphology). Argumentative essay word length was significantly correlated with all argumentation variables, suggesting the need to control word length for writing outcomes.</p> <p>Table 3 Descriptive statistics of raw scores for all measures (n = 119)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Measures</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>[Min, Max]</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="5"><p><italic>Linguistic variables</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Fall syntax (Ling. Knowledge)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>35.95</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10.13</p></td><td align="left"><p>[20.8, 54.2]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Fall vocabulary (Ling. Knowledge)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>30.24</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.83</p></td><td align="left"><p>[23.4, 36]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Fall morphology (Ling. Knowledge)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>25.36</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9.80</p></td><td align="left"><p>[14.65, 43.4]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Spring CALS (Ling. Awareness)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>479.31</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>21.39</p></td><td align="left"><p>[444.2, 507.8]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Spring word recognition (Control)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>78.34</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>25.99</p></td><td align="left"><p>[0, 136]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="5"><p><italic>Writing outcomes</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Word count</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>82.0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>57.87</p></td><td align="left"><p>[0, 345]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>Stance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.42</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.62</p></td><td align="left"><p>[0,1]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p>Reasons</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.38</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.34</p></td><td align="left"><p>[0,7]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>9</p></td><td align="left"><p>Elaboration</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.38</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.14</p></td><td align="left"><p>[0,6]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>Opposing ideas</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.47</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.90</p></td><td align="left"><p>[0,4]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>11</p></td><td align="left"><p>Rebuttals</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.22</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.49</p></td><td align="left"><p>[0,2]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p>Conclusion</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.26</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.44</p></td><td align="left"><p>[0,1]</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>CALS</emph> core analytic language skills (aka linguistic awareness)</p> <p>Table 4 Correlations between all variables (n = 119)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>1</p></th><th align="left"><p>2</p></th><th align="left"><p>3</p></th><th align="left"><p>4</p></th><th align="left"><p>5</p></th><th align="left"><p>6</p></th><th align="left"><p>7</p></th><th align="left"><p>8</p></th><th align="left"><p>9</p></th><th align="left"><p>10</p></th><th align="left"><p>11</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="12"><p><italic>Linguistic variables</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>1. Fall syntax</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2. Fall vocabulary</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.49***</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3. Fall morphology</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.55***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.17</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4.Spring CALS</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.53***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.42***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.60***</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5. Spring orthography</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.29</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.13</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.44***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.36***</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="12"><p><italic>Writing outcomes</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>6. Word count</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.08</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>7. Stance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.07</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.20*</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.01</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>8. Reasons</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.06</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.36***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.17</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>9. Elaboration</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.05</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.18</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.19*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.14</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.61***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.34***</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>10. Opposing ideas</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.05</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.14</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.51***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.11</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.27***</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>11. Rebuttals</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.11</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.34***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.19*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.68</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>12. Conclusions</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.11</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.14</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.08</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.41***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.07</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.25**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.31***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.18</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.12</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>CALS</emph> core analytic language skills (aka linguistic awareness); <emph>***p</emph> < <emph>0.001, ** p</emph> < <emph>0.01, * p</emph> < <emph>0.05</emph></p> <hd id="AN0188474682-13">Evaluation of the measurement model</hd> <p>Following procedures outlined in Silverman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref117">61</reflink>]), two separate measurement models were confirmed that included linguistic knowledge and argumentation (Fig. 2) and linguistic knowledge and counter-argumentation (Fig. 3). Specifically, reasons, elaboration and conclusion loaded onto the argumentation latent construct and opposing ideas and rebuttals loaded onto counter-argumentation, while vocabulary, morphology, and syntax were the observed indicators for linguistic knowledge. Stance was not included in either writing construct because there was almost no variability in the indicator with almost every participant including a stance in their essay. The model fit indices were computed to test whether observed variables loaded appropriately on both latent factors. For Argumentation, the two-factor model fit was good: Chi-square = 11.871, <emph>df</emph> = 8, = 0.157, CFI = 0.961, RMSEA = 0.067, 90% CI [0.000, 0.142], SRMR = 0.067. For Counter-argumentation the two-factor model fit was also adequate: Chi-square = 6.625, <emph>df</emph> = 8, = 0.578, CFI = 1, RMSEA = 0.000, 90% CI [0.000, 0.100], SRMR = 0.045. For model identification, we set the loadings of the first indicator to each latent factor (syntax to linguistic knowledge, reason to argumentation, and opposing ideas to counter–argumentation) to 1 and reported standardized estimates. As illustrated in Fig. 2, reasons, elaborations and conclusion loaded significantly onto the Argumentation factor, while in Fig. 3, opposing ideas and rebuttals loaded non-significantly onto counter-argumentation, perhaps because students produced less than 1 on average opposing ideas and rebuttals in their essays.</p> <hd id="AN0188474682-14">Evaluation of the structural equation models</hd> <p>Per Fig. 1, we tested two nested models for written argumentation and counter-argumentation. Model 1a represented the no-mediation model, where Fall linguistic knowledge and Spring linguistic awareness independently predicted both Spring writing outcomes (argumentation/counter-argumentation). Model 1b represented the mediation model where Fall linguistic knowledge predicted Spring linguistic awareness and Spring writing outcomes (argumentation/counter-argumentation), and Spring linguistic awareness also predicted Spring writing outcomes. Additionally, orthographic knowledge, word count, and English learner variables were included as control variables for the writing outcomes (Fig. 4).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 4 The SEM model for argumentation and counter-argumentation constructs with standardized coefficients. Model fit indices for model 1b: Chi-square = 11.193, df = 10, = 0.343, CFI = 0.993, RMSEA = 0.034, SRMR = 0.06, AIC = 3807.9, BIC = 3855.9; model 2b: Chi-square = 42.69, df = 11, = 0.263, CFI = 0.983, RMSEA = 0.039, SRMR = 0.06, AIC = 4654.6, BIC = 4733.9. ***p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05</p> <p>The model fit indices of the competing models are shown in Table 5. Because the models were nested, chi-square difference tests were used to determine the best-fitting model. We tested argumentation and counter-argumentation models A (no mediation) and B (mediation). The chi-square difference test results for Argumentation were: Chi-square = 79.268, <emph>df</emph> = 11, = 0.000, CFI = 0.588, RMSEA = 0.242, SRMR = 0.171 for no mediation, versus Chi-square = 11.193, df = 10, = 0.343, CFI = 0.993, RMSEA = 0.034, SRMR = 0.06 for mediation. The likelihood ratio test between the two models indicated that the mediation model was a better fit with the covariance structure of the data (Chi-square = 68.075, df = 1, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). This model explained 83.7% of the variance in argumentative writing outcomes, with 12% of that variance explained exclusively by linguistic awareness and linguistic knowledge. Here, the direct effect of linguistic knowledge on argumentation was non-significant, but its indirect effect, via linguistic awareness, was 0.315 (i.e., 0.5 * 0.63).</p> <p>Table 5 Results of the likelihood ratio test for Model 1a, Model 1b, Model 2a and Model 2b</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Chi-square test of exact fit</p></th><th align="left"><p>Likelihood ratio test</p></th><th align="left"><p>CFI</p></th><th align="left"><p>RMSEA</p></th><th align="left"><p>SRMR</p></th><th align="left"><p>AIC</p></th><th align="left"><p>BIC</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="8"><p><italic>Argumentation</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model a (no mediation)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>79.268(11), <italic>p</italic> = 0.000</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.588</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.242</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.171</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3874.0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3919.3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model b (mediation)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>11.193(10), <italic>p</italic> = 0.343</p></td><td align="left"><p>68.075 (1)***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.993</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.034</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.057</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3807.9</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3855.9</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="8"><p><italic>Counter-argumentation</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model a(no mediation)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>71.705(11), <italic>p</italic> = 0.000</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.812</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.130</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.110</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4695.2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4771.9</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Model b(mediation)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>29.015 (10), <italic>p</italic> = 0.263</p></td><td align="left"><p>42.69 (1)***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.983</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.039</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.064</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4654.6</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4733.9</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>CFI</emph> comparative fit index; <emph>RMSEA</emph> root mean square error of approximation; <emph>SRMR</emph> standardized root mean squared residual; <emph>AIC</emph> akaike information criterion; <emph>BIC</emph> Bayesian information criterion. *** <emph>p</emph> < 0.001</p> <p>For counter-argumentation, the chi-square difference tests showed a poor-fitting model for no-mediation (Chi-square = 71.705, <emph>df</emph> = 11, = 0.000, CFI = 0.812, RMSEA = 0.130, SRMR = 0.11), but reasonable for the mediation model (Chi-square = 42.69, <emph>df</emph> = 11, = 0.263, CFI = 0.983 RMSEA = 0.039, SRMR = 0.06). Indeed, chi-square difference testing showed the mediation model with a significantly better fit (Chi-square = 42.69, <emph>df</emph> = 1, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). However, the only significant path in this model was from linguistic knowledge to linguistic awareness, with no significant paths between either linguistic indicator and counter-argumentation. Together, the two linguistic variables explained a non-significant 2% of the variance in counter-argumentation, with 34.7% of the variance in counter-argumentation explained by the control variables. Thus, the fact that the mediation model fit the data well appears to have been driven by the additional path between linguistic knowledge and linguistic awareness, alongside the inclusion of control variables. This is likely because the counter-argumentation indicators generated by students (i.e., opposing ideas and rebuttals) were few (see Table 3), resulting in limited variability in the outcome for linear modeling. As such, the counter-argumentation model is not relevant to answering our research question.</p> <hd id="AN0188474682-15">Discussion</hd> <p>The goal of this study was to investigate relations between linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, morphology, syntax), linguistic awareness (Core Analytic Language Skills) and argumentative writing for elementary school bilingual writers. Following the Simple View of Writing (Berninger et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref118">11</reflink>]; Juel et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref119">27</reflink>]) and DIEW (Kim & Schatschneider, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref120">35</reflink>]), we examined the text generation process of argumentative writing by coding for students' use of argumentation (stance, reasons, elaborations) and counter-argumentation (opposing ideas, rebuttals) and explored whether linguistic knowledge contributed directly or indirectly to argumentative writing, and whether linguistic awareness also predicted argumentation. Our findings revealed that linguistic knowledge predicted students' argumentation only as mediated by linguistic awareness.</p> <p>However, neither linguistic knowledge nor linguistic awareness was associated with students' counter-argumentation, likely due to highly constrained variation in that outcome (fewer than one opposing idea or rebuttal per essay). Such constraints in counter-argumentation are likely both developmental and instructional. The CCSS ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref121">44</reflink>]) for both fourth and fifth grade suggest that students' written arguments should do the following: "1) Introduce a topic or text clearly, state an opinion, and create an organizational structure in which related ideas are grouped to support the writer's purpose; 2) Provide reasons that are supported by facts and details; 3) Link opinion and reasons using words and phrases (e.g., <emph>for instance</emph>, <emph>in order to</emph>, <emph>in addition</emph>); and 4) Provide a concluding statement or section related to the opinion presented" (see https://<ulink href="http://www.thecorestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/W/4/">www.thecorestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/W/4/</ulink>). Indeed, it is not until the 8th grade that students are expected to produce "counterclaims" in their argumentative writing. Thus, it is not surprising (nor should it be expected) that these fourth and fifth grade students produced few such argumentation indicators in their writing. Thus, our interpretations of findings are limited to the students' argument writing only.</p> <hd id="AN0188474682-16">Linguistic knowledge versus linguistic awareness</hd> <p>Our findings add to the wealth of research highlighting the importance of linguistic knowledge for writing performance (Apel & Apel, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref122">3</reflink>]; Berninger & Abbott, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref123">9</reflink>]; Coker, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref124">16</reflink>]; Crosson & Lesaux, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref125">18</reflink>]; McCutchen et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref126">41</reflink>]; Olinghouse, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref127">46</reflink>]; Olinghouse & Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref128">47</reflink>]; Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref129">32</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref130">28</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref131">31</reflink>]; Kim & Schatschneider, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref132">35</reflink>]; Shanahan & Lomax, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref133">59</reflink>]). Surely there is no question that basic linguistic knowledge is critical for generating written text. However, the current study moves the field of writing research forward by making a distinction between linguistic knowledge and linguistic awareness. Per the work of Brisk ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref134">12</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref135">13</reflink>]), we theorized that linguistic knowledge would likely be more important for simpler written genres like narrative and informational texts. Specifically, with narrative writing, the most important aspect of language resides within the use of verbs because they reflect the personality of the people or characters the author writes about. By contrast, in the informational genres (e.g., reports and explanations), it is the noun groups that are critical because they carry the information needed for effective writing (see Brisk, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref136">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>By contrast, argumentative writing requires much more attention to form, audience, structure, and linguistic choice. As Brisk (personal communication, August 31, 2024) put it, when it comes to argumentative writing, "the writer not only needs to know the language but needs to be aware of the impact it has on the effectiveness of their argument". Given this genre perspective, it is sensible that linguistic knowledge might be adequate for predicting some writing outcomes, but a more nuanced ability to understand and manipulate language may be of additional importance with more complex writing expectations. Indeed, we found evidence of this, with linguistic knowledge only predicting writing indirectly through linguistic awareness. Future research might seek to test these linguistic models while varying the genre of the writing outcome (i.e., narrative vs. informational vs. argument) to see if this claim holds up empirically.</p> <hd id="AN0188474682-17">Instructional implications</hd> <p>Given the importance of argumentative writing as highlighted by national assessments and the Common Core State Standards, the findings here offer some practical guidance for educators. Fact that both linguistic awareness and linguistic knowledge were associated with writing suggests that instruction should target both foundational language skills (vocabulary, morphology, syntax) in the service of better understanding the more complex dynamics of discourse structures that become increasingly varied over time. That is, students move from emergent writers who devote significant cognitive energy to simply converting their ideations to linguistic form (i.e., transcribe), to becoming increasingly strategic writers who are aware of different genre demands of writing with respect to text structure, audience awareness, and linguistic choice. A similar principle applies to reading development, specifically Scarborough's ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref137">57</reflink>]) reading rope in which decoding and linguistic comprehension become increasingly automatic (decoding) and strategic (linguistic comprehension) over time.</p> <p>Links between reading and writing are important, and both suggest that instruction, particularly with multilingual learners, should be consistently grounded in language generally and linguistic awareness more specifically, resulting stronger metalinguistic skills that reflect a strategic approach to making sense of, and producing, text. Teachers who focus on understanding language components and how they function in text and discourse with their students arguably equip them with the necessary (linguistic) knowledge to become strategic readers and writers through an increased linguistic awareness (see Brisk, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref138">13</reflink>]; Proctor et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref139">51</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref140">50</reflink>]; Silverman et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref141">61</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188474682-18">A closing limitation</hd> <p>This study contributes to the broader field of writing research by exploring argumentative writing specifically among Spanish- and Portuguese-English bilingual students, but it was conducted only in English. Researchers should build on this work by investigating how linguistic knowledge and awareness interact within the context of bilingual writing outcomes (i.e., monolingual writing in other languages and/or the trans-linguistic writing practices of multilingual students) and how these relationships evolve over time, deepening our understanding of the challenges and opportunities in teaching argumentative writing to multilingual learners.</p> <hd id="AN0188474682-19">Funding</hd> <p>The funding was provided by Institute of Education Sciences, Grant No. R305A140114.</p> <hd id="AN0188474682-20">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0188474682-21"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref95" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Anglin JM. Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 1993; 58; 10: v-165. 10.2307/1166112</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref52" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Anstrom K, DiCerbo P, Katz A, Millet J, Rivera C. A review of the literature on academic English: Implications for K-12 English language learners. 2010; The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref31" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Apel K, Apel L. Identifying intraindividual differences in students' written language abilities. Topics in Language Disorders. 2011; 31; 1: 54-72. 10.1097/TLD.0b013e31820a22b4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref12" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Applebee, A. N, Langer, J. A, Mullis, I. V. S, Latham, A. S, & Gentile, C. A. (1994). NAEP writing 1992 writing report card. (Report 23-W01). National Assessment of Educational Progress.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref96" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> August D, Kenyon D, Malabonga V, Louguit M, Caglarcan S. Extract the base. 2001; Center for Applied Linguistics</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref53" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bailey A, Butler F, Stevens R, Lord CBailey A. Further specifying the language demands of school. The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the test. 2007; Yale University Press: 103-156</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref1" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bangert-Drowns RL, Hurley MM, Wilkinson B. The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research. 2004; 74; 1: 29-58. 10.3102/00346543074001029</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref54" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Barr CD, Uccelli P, Phillips Galloway E. Specifying the academic language skills that support text understanding in the middle grades: The design and validation of the core academic language skills construct and instrument. Language Learning. 2019; 69; 4: 978-1021. 10.1111/lang.12365</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref35" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Berninger VW, Abbott RD. Discourse-level oral language, oral expression, reading comprehension, and written expression: Related yet unique language systems in grades 1, 3, 5, and 7. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2010; 102: 635-651. 10.1037/a0019319</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berninger VW, Abbott RD, Abbott SP, Graham S, Richards T. Writing and reading: Connections between language by hand and language by eye. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2002; 35; 1: 39-56. 10.1177/002221940203500104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berninger V, Yates C, Cartwright A, Rutberg J, Remy E, Abbott R. Lower-level developmental skills in beginning writing. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 1992; 4: 257-280. 10.1007/BF01027151</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brisk ME. Young bilingual writers' control of grammatical person in different genres. Elementary School Journal. 2012; 112; 3: 445-468. 10.1086/663733</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brisk ME. Language in writing instruction: Enhancing literacy in grades 3–8. 2020; Routledge. 10.4324/9780429397769</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carlisle JF. Knowledge of derivational morphology and spelling ability in fourth, sixth, and eighth graders. Applied Psycholinguistics. 1988; 9: 247-266. 10.1017/S0142716400007839</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carrow-Woolfolk E. The comprehensive assessment of spoken language. 1999; Pearson</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coker DL. Impact of first-grade factors on the growth and outcomes of urban schoolchildren's primary-grade writing. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2006; 98: 471-488. 10.1037/00220663.98.3.471</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> College Board. (2011). About the tests. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://sat.collegeboard.org/about-tests">http://sat.collegeboard.org/about-tests</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crosson A, Lesaux N. Does knowledge of connectives play a unique role in the reading comprehension of English learners and English-only students?. Journal of Research in Reading. 2013; 36: 241-260. 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2011.01501.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Smedt F, Graham S, Van Keer H. The bright and dark side of writing motivation: Effects of explicit instruction and peer assistance. The Journal of Educational Research. 2019; 112; 2: 152-167. 10.1080/00220671.2018.1461598</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferretti RP, Lewis WE. Knowledge of persuasion and writing goals predict the quality of children's persuasive writing. Reading and Writing. 2019; 32; 6: 1411-1430. 10.1007/s11145-018-9918-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferretti RP, Lewis WE, Andrews-Weckerly S. Do goals affect the structure of students' argumentative writing strategies?. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2009; 101; 3: 577-589. 10.1037/a0014702</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferretti RP, MacArthur CA, Dowdy NS. The effects of an elaborated goal on the persuasive writing of students with learning disabilities and their normally achieving peers. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2000; 92: 694. 10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.694</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S. Changing how writing is taught. Review of Research in Education. 2019; 43: 277-303. 10.3102/0091732X18821125</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S, McKeown D, Kiuhara S, Harris KR. A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2012; 104; 4: 879-896. 10.1037/a0029185</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S, Perin D. A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2007; 99; 3: 445-476. 10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. 1999; 6: 1-55. 10.1080/10705519909540118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Juel C, Griffith PL, Gough PB. Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1986; 78: 243-255. 10.1037/0022-0663.78.4.243</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim I, Anderson RC, Miller B, Jeong J, Swim T. Influence of cultural norms and collaborative discussions on children's reflective essays. Discourse Processes. 2011; 48; 7: 501-528. 10.1080/0163853X.2011.606098</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim JS, Relyea JE, Burkhauser MA, Scherer E, Rich P. Improving elementary grade students' science and social studies vocabulary knowledge depth, reading comprehension, and argumentative writing: A conceptual replication. Educational Psychology Review. 2021. 10.1007/s10648-021-09609-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim YG. Structural relations of language and cognitive skills, and topic knowledge to written composition: A test of the direct and indirect effects model of writing. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2020; 90; 4: 910-932. 10.1111/bjep.12330</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim Y-S, Al Otaiba S, Folsom JS, Greulich L, Puranik C. Evaluating the dimensionality of first grade written composition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2014; 57: 199-211. 10.1044/1092-4388(2013/12-0152)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim YS, Al Otaiba S, Puranik C, Folsom JS, Greulich L, Wagner RK. Componential skills of beginning writing: An exploratory study. Learning and Individual Differences. 2011; 21; 5: 517-525. 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.06.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim Y-S, Al Otaiba S, Wanzek J, Gatlin B. Towards an understanding of dimension, predictors, and gender gaps in written composition. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2015; 107: 79-95. 10.1037/a0037210</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim Y-SG, Park S-H. Unpacking pathways using the direct and indirect effects model of writing (DIEW) and the contributions of higher order cognitive skills to writing. Reading and Writing. 2019; 32; 5: 1319-1343. 10.1007/s11145-018-9913-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim Y-SG, Schatschneider C. Expanding the developmental models of writing: A direct and indirect effects model of developmental writing (DIEW). Journal of Educational Psychology. 2017; 109; 1: 35-50. 10.1037/edu0000129</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kintsch W. The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review. 1988; 95: 163-182. 10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mather, N, Hammill, D. D, Allen, E. A, & Roberts, R. (2004). Test of silent word reading fluency. PRO-ED.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer REBritton BK, Black JB. Structural analysis of science prose: Can we increase problem solving performance?. Understanding of expository text. 1985; Erlbaum: 65-87</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCutchen D. Domain knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development of writing ability. Journal of Memory and Language. 1986; 25; 4: 431-444. 10.1016/0749-596X(86)90036-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCutchen D. Knowledge, processing, and working memory: Implications for a theory of writing. Educational Psychologist. 2000; 35; 1: 13-23. 10.1207/S15326985EP3501_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCutchen D, Stull S, Herrera BL, Lotas S, Evans S. Putting words to work: Effects of morphological instruction on children's writing. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2014; 47; 1: 86-97. 10.1177/0022219413509969</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Migration Policy Institute. (2021). Young dual language learners in the United States and by state.https://<ulink href="http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/us-state-profiles-Young-dlls">www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/us-state-profiles-Young-dlls</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Assessment Governing Board. (2017). Writing framework for the 2017 national assessment of educational progress.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Education Association. (2021). English language learners toolkit. https://<ulink href="http://www.nea.org/resource-library/english-language-learners">www.nea.org/resource-library/english-language-learners</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olinghouse NG. Student- and instruction-level predictors of narrative writing in third-grade students. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2008; 21: 3-26. 10.1007/s11145-007-9062-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olinghouse NG, Wilson J. The relationship between vocabulary and writing quality in three genres. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2013; 26: 45-65. 10.1007/s11145-012-9392-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phillips Galloway E, Qin W, Uccelli P, Barr CD. The role of cross-disciplinary academic language skills in disciplinary, source-based writing: Investigating the role of core academic language skills in science summarization for middle grade writers. Reading and Writing. 2020; 33; 1: 13-44. 10.1007/s11145-019-09942-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phillips Galloway E, Uccelli P. Examining developmental relations between core academic language skills and reading comprehension for English learners and their peers. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2019; 111; 1: 15-31. 10.1037/edu0000276</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Proctor CP, Daley SG, Xu Y, Graham S, Li Z, Hall TE. Shared knowledge between reading and writing among middle school adolescent readers. The Elementary School Journal. 2020; 120; 3: 507-527. 10.1086/707140</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Proctor CP, Silverman RD, Harring JR, Jones RL, Hartranft AM. Teaching bilingual learners: Effects of a language-based reading intervention on academic language and reading comprehension in grades 4 and 5. Reading Research Quarterly. 2020; 55; 1: 95-122. 10.1002/rrq.258</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rapanta C, Garcia-Mila M, Gilabert S. What is meant by argumentative competence? An integrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education. Review of Educational Research. 2013; 83; 4: 483-520. 10.3102/0034654313487606</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reznitskaya A, Anderson RC, McNurlen B, Nguyen-Jahiel K, Archodidou A, Kim S. Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes. 2001; 32; 2–3: 155-175. 10.1207/S15326950DP3202&3_04</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reznitskaya A, Kuo L, Clark A, Miller B, Jadallah M, Anderson RC, Nguyen-Jahiel K. Collaborative reasoning: A dialogic approach to group discussions. Cambridge Journal of Education. 2009; 39: 29-48. 10.1080/03057640802701952</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosseel Y. Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software. 2012; 48; 2: 1-36. 10.18637/jss.v048.i02</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salahu-Din, D, Persky, H, & Miller, J. (2008). The nation's report card: Writing 2007 (NCES 2008-468). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis) abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. Neumann & D. Dickinson (Eds.) Handbook of early literacy research, vol. 1, pp. 97–110.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scarcella, R. 2003. Academic English: A conceptual framework. Technical Report 2003-1. University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shanahan T, Lomax RG. An analysis and comparison of theoretical models of the reading- writing relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1986; 78; 2: 116-123. 10.1037/0022-0663.78.2.116</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silverman RD, Coker D, Proctor CP, Harring J, Piantedosi KW, Hartranft AM. The relationship between language skills and writing outcomes for linguistically diverse students in upper elementary school. The Elementary School Journal. 2015; 116; 1: 103-125. 10.1086/683135</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silverman RD, Proctor CP, Harring JR, Taylor KS, Johnson EM, Jones RL, Lee Y. The effect of a language and literacy intervention on upper elementary bilingual students' argument writing. The Elementary School Journal. 2021; 122; 2: 208-232. 10.1086/716897</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snow CE. Facilitating language development promotes literacy learning. Effective early childhood education. 2002; Routledge: 151-172</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snow CE, Uccelli POlson DR, Torrance N. The challenge of academic language. The Cambridge handbook of literacy. 2009; Cambridge University Press: 112-133. 10.1017/CBO9780511609664.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stavans A, Seroussi B, Zadunaisky Ehrlich S. Literacy-related abilities' effects on argumentative text quality structure. Journal of Literacy Research. 2019; 51; 3: 315-335. 10.1177/1086296X19859515</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Toulmin SE. The uses of argument. 2003; Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511840005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Uccelli P. Midadolescents' language learning at school: Toward more just and scientifically rigorous practices in research and education. Language Learning. 2023; 73: lang.12558. 10.1111/lang.12558</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Uccelli P, Barr CD, Dobbs CL, Phillips Galloway E, Meneses A, Sanchez E. Core academic language skills (CALS): An expanded operational construct and a novel instrument to chart school-relevant language proficiency in per-adolescent and adolescent learners. Applied PsychoLinguistics. 2015; 36: 1075-1109. 10.1017/S014271641400006X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Uccelli P, Deng Z, Phillips Galloway E, Qin W. The role of language skills in mid-adolescents' science summaries. Journal of Literacy Research. 2019; 51; 3: 357-380. 10.1177/1086296X19860206</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Uccelli P, Demir-Lira ÖE, Rowe ML, Levine S, Goldin-Meadow S. Children's early decontextualized talk predicts academic language proficiency in midadolescence. Child Development. 2019; 90; 5: 1650-1663. 10.1111/cdev.13034</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Uccelli P, Galloway EP, Barr CD, Meneses A, Dobbs CL. Beyond vocabulary: Exploring cross-disciplinary academic-language proficiency and its association with reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly. 2015; 50; 3: 337-356. 10.1002/rrq.104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Dijk TA, Kintsch W. Strategies of discourse comprehension. 1983; Academic Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock, R. W, Muñoz-Sandoval, A. F, Ruef, M, & Alvarado, C. F. (2005). Woodcock-Muñoz language survey–revised. Riverside.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang X, Anderson RC, Morris J, Miller B, Nguyen-Jahiel KT, Lin T, Zhang J, Jadallah M, Scott T, Sun J, Latawiec B, Ma S, Grabow K, Hsu JY. Improving children's competence as decision makers: Contrasting effects of collaborative interaction and direct instruction. American Educational Research Journal. 2016; 53; 1: 194-223. 10.3102/0002831215618663</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Qun Yu; C. Patrick Proctor; Ehri Ryu and Rebecca D. Silverman</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref137"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1489599
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Relationships between Linguistic Knowledge, Linguistic Awareness, and Argumentative Writing among Upper Elementary Bilingual Students
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Qun+Yu%22">Qun Yu</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8471-6476">0000-0001-8471-6476</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22C%2E+Patrick+Proctor%22">C. Patrick Proctor</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ehri+Ryu%22">Ehri Ryu</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rebecca+D%2E+Silverman%22">Rebecca D. Silverman</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+and+Writing%3A+An+Interdisciplinary+Journal%22"><i>Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal</i></searchLink>. 2025 38(8):2317-2339.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 23
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: Institute of Education Sciences (ED)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: R305A140114
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Bilingual+Students%22">Bilingual Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Persuasive+Discourse%22">Persuasive Discourse</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+%28Composition%29%22">Writing (Composition)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Linguistics%22">Linguistics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Skills%22">Language Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Lexicology%22">Lexicology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Morphology+%28Languages%29%22">Morphology (Languages)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Syntax%22">Syntax</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Spanish%22">Spanish</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Portuguese%22">Portuguese</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English%22">English</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Level%22">Knowledge Level</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11145-024-10592-x
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0922-4777<br />1573-0905
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Argumentation is a critical genre of writing that elementary school students are expected to develop, but little is known about how different domains of language contribute to argumentative writing. To explore this, we identified two domains of language: linguistic knowledge (lexical, morphological, and syntactic skills) and linguistic awareness (ability to identify and manipulate discourse- and text-level features). We worked with 119 fourth and fifth grade Spanish- and Portuguese-English bilingual students in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions of the United States. We asked whether students' linguistic knowledge served as a direct predictor of argumentative writing, or as an indirect predictor of argumentative writing, mediated by linguistic awareness. We explored this question with two writing outcomes: students' argumentation and counter-argumentation. Controlling for orthographic knowledge, essay length, and English learner status, structural equation modeling revealed that students' linguistic knowledge predicted their argumentative writing indirectly through linguistic awareness, but not directly. Neither the direct nor indirect effects structural model predicted students' counter-argumentation. Our results extend theory on school-related writing tasks by differentiating between linguistic knowledge and linguistic awareness in understanding bilingual students' written argumentation, with implications for instruction.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: CodeSource
  Label: IES Funded
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Yes
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1489599
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1489599
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11145-024-10592-x
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 23
        StartPage: 2317
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Bilingual Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Persuasive Discourse
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing (Composition)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Linguistics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Lexicology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Morphology (Languages)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Syntax
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Spanish
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Portuguese
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Knowledge Level
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Relationships between Linguistic Knowledge, Linguistic Awareness, and Argumentative Writing among Upper Elementary Bilingual Students
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Qun Yu
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: C. Patrick Proctor
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ehri Ryu
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rebecca D. Silverman
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0922-4777
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-0905
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 38
            – Type: issue
              Value: 8
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1