Text-based writing in elementary classrooms: teachers’ conceptions and practice

Reading and Writing - Writing analytically about text is a valued skill reflected in current academic standards. The quality of text-based writing opportunities in U.S. elementary schools, however,...     

An evaluation of the written texts of children with SLI: the contributions of oral language, reading and phonological short-term memory

In this study, we performed a fine grained analysis of writing by children with a specific language impairment (SLI) and examined the contribution of oral language, phonological short-term memory (STM), nonverbal ability, and word reading to three writing constructs (productivity, complexity and accuracy). Forty-six children with SLI were compared with 42 children matched for chronological age, receptive vocabulary (N = 46) and reading decoding (N = 46) on a measure of narrative writing. The SLI group performed worse on all measures compared to children of a similar chronological age. The SLI group produced a greater proportion of orthographic spelling errors than children with similar receptive vocabularies, but were comparable to children matched for reading decoding. The children with SLI showed specific difficulties in the omission of whole words (e.g. auxiliary verbs and subject nouns) and omissions of grammatical morphology (e.g. past tense—ed) reflecting the difficulties shown in their oral language. Receptive grammar made a significant contribution to writing complexity and accuracy. Phonological fluency contributed to writing productivity, such as the production of diverse vocabulary, ideas and content and writing fluency. Phonological STM and word reading explained additional variance in writing accuracy over and above the SLI group’s oral language skills.     

University research in flux: Policy debate in Australia

After a brief golden age Australian university research faces a difficult future. Two notions, utility and concentration, have become the catchwords of the emerging policy initiatives. Both have tended to be interpreted narrowly and simplistically, utility as having immediate technological applications that will bring economic benefits, and concentration to argue for breaking the teaching-research nexus, reducing the research workforce and thus achieving cost savings. As proposed, both initiatives require more centralised control of research policy and funding. Despite the outstanding record of Australia's universities in research and the absence of evidence to support the benefits claimed for the new initiatives, the pressure for change is gaining momentum. The problems facing Australian universities have much in common with those in other Western countries, although unique solutions must be sought for every setting. This paper argues that, in Australia, the adoption of the easy solution of increased concentration, short-term utility, and centralised control, is likely to compromise the established excellence and diversity in basic research, and to lead to an overall reduction in the scale of university research. Before any changes are instigated, there is a pressing need for a broad-ranging review based on widespread participation in a debate about needs and priorities, and rigorous research into the performance of the existing system and the potential benefits of the changes proposed.