Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Beyond reading comprehension: exploring the additional contribution of Core Academic Language Skills to early adolescents’ written summaries

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To assess text comprehension and concept mastery, standards-aligned measures have moved from using multiple-choice questions to using source-based writing tasks (sometimes referred to as Reading-to-Write tasks). For example, it is now common for students to be asked to read a text and then to produce a written response, often a summary or argumentative essay. While this task involves comprehension of the source text, it remains unclear the degree to which these reading-to-write tasks also tap additional skills, such as academic language proficiency, which may support or hamper the writer’s ability to convey information acquired from reading. Given the lack of research focused on this question, in this study, we examined whether variability in early adolescents’ Core Academic Language Skills (CALS) contributes to the quality of their written summaries of science source texts. A total of 259 participants in grades four to eight were administered the Core Academic Language Skills Instrument (CALS-I) and the Global Integrated Scenario-Based Assessment (GISA), which included a reading comprehension test and a summary writing task, both based on the same scientific source text. Findings revealed that CALS, previously shown to be associated with reading comprehension, have a robust positive relation with early adolescents’ science summary writing quality, predicting unique variance over and above students’ source text comprehension and demographic characteristics. Results highlight the relevance of paying instructional attention not only to content but also to language skills when preparing students to become independent learners in a content area. In addition, these findings offer some evidence for CALS as a cross-modality construct relevant to both reading and writing at school.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (1993). Structural equation modeling of relationships among developmental skills and writing skills in primary-and intermediate-grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmed, Y., Wagner, R. K., & Lopez, D. (2014). Developmental relations between reading and writing at the word, sentence, and text levels: A latent change score analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alamargot, D., & Fayol, M. (2009). Modeling the development of written transcription. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, M. Nystrand, & J. Riley (Eds.), Handbook of writing development (p. 2347). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Apel, K., & Apel, L. (2011). Identifying intraindividual differences in students’ written language abilities. Topics in Language Disorders, 31(1), 54–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apel, K., Wilson-Fowler, E. B., Brimo, D., & Perrin, N. A. (2012). Metalinguistic contributions to reading and spelling in second and third grade students. Reading and Writing, 25(6), 1283–1305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ascención-Delaney, Y. (2008). Investigating the reading-to-write construct. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(3), 140–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Ilan, L., & Berman, R. A. (2007). Developing register differentiation: The Latinate-Germanic divide in English. Linguistics, 45(1), 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barr, C., Uccelli, P. & Phillips Galloway, E. (2018). Core Academic Language Skills-Instrument (Technical Report, No.1).

  • Barr, C., Uccelli, P., & Phillips Galloway, E. (under review). Design and validation of a measure of academic language proficiency.

  • Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2009). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? Which genre? Reading and Writing, 22(2), 185–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2011). Writing development in four genres from grades three to seven: Syntactic complexity and genre differentiation. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24(2), 183–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). An attainable version of high literacy: Approaches to teaching higher-order skills in reading and writing. Curriculum Inquiry, 17(1), 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, R. A., & Nir-Sagiv, B. (2007). Comparing narrative and expository text construction across adolescence: A developmental paradox. Discourse Processes, 43(2), 79–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, R., & Nir-Sagiv, B. (2009). Cognitive and linguistic factors in evaluating text quality: Global versus local. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 421–440). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, R. A., & Ravid, D. (2009). Becoming a literate language user: Oral and written text construction across adolescence. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of literacy (pp. 92–111). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, R. A., & Verhoeven, L. (2002). Developing text-production abilities across languages, genre, and modality. Written Languages and Literacy, 5(1), 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. W. (1999). Coordinating transcription and text generation in working memory during composing: Automatic and constructive processes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 99–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. W., Mizokawa, D. T., Bragg, R., Cartwright, A., & Yates, C. (1994). Intraindividual differences in levels of written language. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 10(3), 259–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. W., Winn, W., MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (2006). Implications of advancements in brain research and technology for writing development, writing instruction, and educational evolution. In A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 96–114). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2015). Grammatical complexity in academic English: Linguistic change in writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlisle, J. F. (2010). Effects of instruction in morphological awareness on literacy achievement: An integrative review. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(4), 464–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).

    Google Scholar 

  • Connor, U. M., & Kramer, M. G. (1995). Writing from sources: Case studies of graduate students in business management. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 155–182). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, B. E., Shanahan, T., & Sulzby, E. (1990). Good and poor elementary readers’ use of cohesion in writing. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(1), 47–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowhurst, M. (1987). Cohesion in argument and narration at three grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 21(2), 185–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Erdosy, U., Eouanzoui, K., & James, M. (2005). Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing, 10(1), 5–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, A., Lai, C., & Cho, H. (2016). Students’ writing from sources for academic purposes: A synthesis of recent research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 47–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, J. (2017). Teaching minoritized students: Are additive approaches legitimate? Harvard Educational Review, 87(3), 404–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidi, O., & Berman, R. A. (2014). Writing abilities of pre-adolescents with and without language/learning impairment in restructuring an informative text. In B. Arfé, J. Dockerell, & G. Berninger (Eds.), Writing development in children with hearing loss, dyslexia, or oral language problems: implications for assessment and instruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeGroff, L. J. C. (1987). The influence of prior knowledge on writing, conferencing, and revising. The Elementary School Journal, 88(2), 105–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dockrell, J. E., Lindsay, G., Connelly, V., & Mackie, C. (2007). Constraints in the production of written text in children with specific language impairments. Exceptional Children, 73(2), 147–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dockrell, J. E., Lindsay, G., & Palikara, O. (2011). Explaining the academic achievement at school leaving for pupils with a history of language impairment: Previous academic achievement and literacy skills. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 27(2), 223–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31(1), 21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galloway, E. P. & Uccelli, P. Developmental relationships between academic language and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology. (in press).

  • Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (2014). Working memory and language. Hove: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gebril, A., & Plakans, L. (2009). Investigating source use, discourse features, and process in integrated writing tests. Spaan Fellow Working Papers in Second or Foreign Language Assessment, 7(1), 47–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2014). Decontextualized language: A problem, not a solution. International Multilingual Research Journal, 8(1), 9–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., & Whitaker, D. (1997). Role of mechanics in composing of elementary school students: A new methodological approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 170–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2015). Common core state standards and writing: Introduction to the special issue. The Elementary School Journal, 115(4), 457–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2017). Reading and writing connections: How writing can build better readers (and vice versa). In C. Ng & B. Bartlett (Eds.), Improving reading and reading engagement in the 21st century (pp. 333–350). Singapore: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2011). Writing to read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing instruction on reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81(4), 710–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Liu, K., Bartlett, B., Ng, C., Harris, K. R., Aitken, A., et al. (2017). Reading for writing: A meta-analysis of the impact of reading and reading instruction on writing. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 243–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Liu, X., Bartlett, B., Ng, C., Harris, K. R., & Aitken, A. (2018). Reading for writing: A meta-analysis of the impact of reading interventions on writing. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 243–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (2003). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall-Mills, S., & Apel, K. (2015). Linguistic feature development across grades and genre in elementary writing. Language, speech, and hearing services in schools, 46(3), 242–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, E. H. (2013). Core vocabulary and the challenge of complex text. In S. B. Neuman & L. B. Gambrell (Eds.), Quality reading instruction in the age of common core standards (pp. 149–161). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, S. (2008). Summary writing in academic contexts: Implicating meaning in processes of change. Linguistics and Education, 19(4), 351–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jisa, H. (2004). Growing into academic French. In R. A. Berman (Ed.), Language development across childhood and adolescence (pp. 135–162). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jisa, H., Reilly, J., Verhoeven, L., Baruch, E., & Rosado, E. (2002). Cross-linguistic perspectives on the use of passive constructions in written texts. Journal of Written Language and Literacy, 5(2), 163–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juel, C., Griffith, P. L., & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kent, S. C., & Wanzek, J. (2016). The relationship between component skills and writing quality and production across developmental levels: A meta-analysis of the last 25 years. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 570–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. S., Al Otaiba, S., Folsom, J. S., Greulich, L., & Puranik, C. (2014). Evaluating the dimensionality of first-grade written composition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57(1), 199–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. S., Al Otaiba, S., Puranik, C., Folsom, J. S., Greulich, L., & Wagner, R. K. (2011). Componential skills of beginning writing: An exploratory study. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(5), 517–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. S. G., & Schatschneider, C. (2017). Expanding the developmental models of writing: A direct and indirect effects model of developmental writing (DIEW). Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(1), 35–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49(4), 294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langer, J. A. (1986). Children reading and writing: Structures and strategies. New York City: Ablex Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maas, C. J., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1(3), 86–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCutchen, D. (1986). Domain knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development of writing ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 25(4), 431–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, B., & McCardle, P. (2011). Reflections on the need for continued research on writing. Reading and Writing, 24(2), 121–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moje, E. B. (2015). Doing and teaching disciplinary literacy with adolescent learners: A social and cultural enterprise. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 254–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagy, W., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Vaughan, K., & Vermeulen, K. (2003). Relationship of morphology and other language skills to literacy skills in at-risk second-grade readers and at-risk fourth-grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagy, W., Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. D. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle-school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagy, W., & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 91–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nippold, M. A. (2007). Later language development: School-age children, adolescents, and young adults. ‎Austin: Pro-ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nippold, M., & Scott, C. (2009). Overview of expository discourse: Development and disorders. In M. Nippold & C. Scott (Eds.), Expository discourse in children, adolescents, and adults: Development and disorders (pp. 1–11). Hove/Abingdon: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nippold, M. A., & Sun, L. (2010). Expository writing in children and adolescents: A classroom assessment tool. Perspectives on Language Learning and Education, 17(3), 100–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nir-Sagiv, B., Bar-Ilan, L., & Berman, R. A. (2008). Vocabulary development across adolescence: Text-based analyses. In I. Kupferberg & A. Stavans (Eds.), Studies in language and language education: Essays in honor of Elite Olshtain (pp. 47–74). Jerusalem: Magnes Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nir-Sagiv, B., & Berman, R. (2010). Complex syntax as a window on contrastive rethoric. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(3), 744–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, T., Weeks, J., Sabatini, J., Halderman, L., & Steinberg, J. (2014). Designing reading comprehension assessments for reading interventions: How a theoretically motivated assessment can serve as an outcome measure. Educational Psychology Review, 26(3), 403–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olinghouse, N. G., & Wilson, J. (2013). The relationship between vocabulary and writing quality in three genres. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26(1), 45–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips Galloway, E., & Uccelli, P. (2015). Modeling the relationship between lexico-grammatical and discourse organization skills in middle grade writers: insights into later productive language skills that support academic writing. Reading and Writing, 28(6), 797–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips Galloway, E., & Uccelli, P. (2018). Developmental relationships between academic language and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology.

  • Ravid, D., & Tolchinsky, L. (2002). Developing linguistic literacy: A comprehensive model. Journal of Child Language, 29(2), 417–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatini, J. P., O’Reilly, T., Halderman, L. K., & Bruce, K. (2014a). Broadening the scope of reading comprehension using scenario-based assessments: Preliminary findings and challenges. L’Année Psychologique, 114(04), 693–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatini, J. P., O’Reilly, T., Halderman, L. K., & Bruce, K. (2014b). Integrating scenario-based and component reading skill measures to understand the reading behavior of struggling readers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(1), 36–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salas, N., Llauradó, A., Castillo, C., Taulé, M., & Martí, M. A. (2016). Linguistic correlates of text quality from childhood to adulthood. In J. Perera, M. Aparici, E. Rosado, & N. Salas (Eds.), Written and spoken language development across the lifespan. Essays in honour of Liliana Tolchinsky (pp. 307–326). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, T., & Schilperoord, J. (2006). Text structure as a window on the cognition of writing. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), The handbook of writing research (pp. 386–402). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, C. (2009). Assessing expository texts produced by children and adolescents. In M. Nippold & C. Scott (Eds.), Expository discourse in children, adolescents, and adults: Development and disorders (pp. 195–217). Hove/Abingdon: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, T. (2016). Relationships between reading and writing development. Handbook of Writing Research, 194–207.

  • Shi, L. (2004). Textual borrowing in second-language writing. Written Communication, 21(2), 171–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, R. D., Coker, D., Proctor, C. P., Harring, J., Piantedosi, K. W., & Hartranft, A. M. (2015). The relationship between language skills and writing outcomes for linguistically diverse students in upper elementary school. The Elementary School Journal, 116(1), 103–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. E. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science, 328(5977), 450–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. E., & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge of academic language. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy (pp. 112–133). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Street, B. (2005). Literacies across educational contexts: Mediating learning and teaching. Philadelphia: Caslon Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, R. J., & Shanahan, T. (1991). Research on reading-writing relationships: A synthesis and suggested directions. Handbook of Reading Research, 2, 246–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uccelli, P., Barr, C. D., Dobbs, C. L., Phillips Galloway, E., Meneses, A., & Sánchez, E. (2015a). Core academic language skills (CALS): An expanded operational construct and a novel instrument to chart school-relevant language proficiency in pre-adolescent and adolescent learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(5), 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uccelli, P., Dobbs, C. L., & Scott, J. (2013). Mastering academic language: Organization and stance in the persuasive writing of high school students. Written Communication, 30(1), 36–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uccelli, P., & Phillips Galloway, E. (2017). Academic language across content areas: Lessons from an innovative assessment and from students’ reflections about language. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(4), 395–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uccelli, P., Phillips Galloway, E., Barr, C. D., Meneses, A., & Dobbs, C. L. (2015b). Beyond vocabulary: Exploring cross-disciplinary academic-language proficiency and its association with reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(3), 337–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. F., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition, 29(8), 1081–1087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, T. A., Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension (pp. 11–12). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education through Grant R305F100026, which was awarded to the Strategic Education Research Partnership as part of the Reading for Understanding Research Initiative. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the institute or the US Department of Education. We express our gratitude to the students and teachers who shared their valuable time and insights with us and to our numerous colleagues for their helpful comments as we conducted this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vanderbilt University, 230 Appleton Place, Nashville, TN, 37203, USA

    Emily Phillips Galloway

  2. Harvard Graduate School of Education, 320 Larsen Hall, 14 Appian Way, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA

    Paola Uccelli

Authors
  1. Emily Phillips Galloway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paola Uccelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily Phillips Galloway.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Phillips Galloway, E., Uccelli, P. Beyond reading comprehension: exploring the additional contribution of Core Academic Language Skills to early adolescents’ written summaries. Read Writ 32, 729–759 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9880-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9880-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation