Insights into Learning Disabilities 17(1), 55-70, 2020

Copyright @ by LDW 2020

Persuasive Discourse in Adolescents With Learning

Disabilities: Written Versus Spoken Sentence Complexity
Elizabeth B. Wilson-Fowler
Eastern Washington University, USA
Hailey Haldeman
Philomath School District, USA
Lesli Cleveland
Krisztian Magori
Eastern Washington University, USA
The purpose of this study was to determine whether there were differenc-
es in levels of sentence complexity and grammatical correctness between
the spoken and written persuasive language of adolescents with Learn-
ing Disabilities (LDs). After viewing short videos providing background
information on controversial animal welfare topics, spoken and written
persuasive samples were collected from 27 adolescents with LDs. The
samples were analyzed for measures of sentence complexity descriptive-
ly and quantitatively using multivariate analysis of variance. Sentences
were further evaluated for percent of complex vs. simple and grammati-
cally correct vs. incorrect productions. Complex sentences were produced
with similar frequency in written (84%) and spoken (75%) persuasion.
Thirty-three percent of written and twenty-six percent of spoken complex
sentences contained grammatical errors. Given the social and academic
value of persuasive communication and the shared grammatical weak-
nesses in sentences, our findings lend support to combined speaking and
writing practice and use of effective collaborations between educators and
speech-language pathologists when teaching the language of persuasion.
Keywords: Writing, Persuasion, Sentence, Adolescent, Lan-
guage, Grammar

Introduction
Writing Skills and Students with Learning Disabilities
The ability to write and speak persuasively is a focus in the schools and
workforce for all students, including those with learning disabilities (LDs; i.e.,
disorder in the processes involved in understanding or using spoken or written
language [Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004]). High school stu-
dents are expected to both write and discuss arguments and provide support for
their claims (Common Core State Standards Initiative: English Language Arts,
Insights into Learning Disabilities is published by Learning Disabilities Worldwide (LDW). For further
information about learning disabilities, LDW’s many other publications and membership, please visit our
website: www.ldworldwide.org.

55
Insights into Learning Disabilities 17(1), 55-70, 2020

2010). Yet, more than 50% of students with LDs are failing state writing tests
which include persuasive writing tasks (Nation’s Report Card, 2011). In fact,
62% of high school students who received writing scores of below basic in 2011
were students with disabilities. The writing of high school students with LDs is
characterized by fewer words, less complexity and poorer quality than typically
developing (TD) peers (Nippold, Ward-Lonergan, & Fanning, 2005).
Language is Complex and Multidisciplinary
There is growing evidence that academic writing and academic speak-
ing are interconnected and can be used to support each other (Pennington &
Bishop, 2009; Reznitskaya et al., 2001; Uccelli, Dobbs, & Scott, 2013). Educa-
tors and Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs) in the schools work collaborative-
ly in teams. Together with other clinicians and specialists, they share responsibil-
ity for academic outcomes for students who receive services in special education.
Thus, it is important for all team members to develop shared terminology and
approaches. These may include shared awareness of the underlying language
skills that students need for success in the curriculum.
One language ability that has been less studied in high school students
(and is generally less understood by laypeople) is the use of complex sentences.
In English, clauses form sentences. Clauses are often classified as being either
independent (i.e., a complete thought that contains a subject and a verb and can
stand alone as a sentence; e.g., I need dancing shoes) or dependent. Dependent
clauses include utterances that contain (1) a subject and a verb but cannot stand
alone as a sentence (e.g., when I learn to dance…), (2) an infinitive verb (i.e., a
verb in its unmarked form; e.g., to prepare for prom…), or verbs that often end
in –ing and act like dependent clauses (i.e., participles or gerunds; e.g., offering
to swing dance…; Berry & Brizee, 2010; Maurer, 2012; Yilmaz, 2018).
Complex sentences are sentences that contain at least one independent
clause and at least one dependent clause (e.g., I need dancing shoes when I
learn to dance or offering to swing dance, I need dancing shoes; Scott, 2011).
Without the ability to appropriately use complex sentences during speaking and
writing activities, students will be unable to express efficiently the embedded
and connected ideas that make up complex thinking (Nippold, 2014). Although
good writers combine both simple and complex sentences when writing, stu-
dents who appropriately use more complex sentences receive higher scores on
writing quality (Beers & Nagy, 2009; Crowhurst, 1983).
Language sampling
Well documented and growing language interconnections exist be-
tween spoken and written language (Carlisle, 2010; Scarborough, 2005; Snowl-
ing, 2005; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). For example, we know that the ability
to manipulate individual spoken sounds in words is necessary for individuals to
become strong readers and writers. Much of this critical knowledge comes from

56
 Insights into Learning Disabilities 17(1), 55-70, 2020

research in which these discrete abilities are measured using specifically designed
individual tasks.
In contrast to discrete measures, language sampling takes a more natu-
ralistic approach to examining spoken and written language. Researchers have
obtained and analyzed monologic (or one speaker) samples of language when
students are given a prompt or task to write or speak about. Successfully com-
municating a cohesive and academic text requires students to juggle multiple
and competing demands. It is thought that generating a language sample on
higher level topics will stress the language system and indicate where deficien-
cies exist. Thus, it provides educational teams with critical information about
students’ ability to use academic, higher level language, including vocabulary,
knowledge of required organizational structure, and the ability to produce gram-
matically correct and complex sentences (Scott, 2009, 2011).
Development and Growth of Complex Sentences
A detailed explanation of the “complexities” of complex sentence de-
velopment and growth is beyond the scope of this paper. However, an under-
standing of the general course of development of complex sentences may help
to explain the importance of complex sentences to communication. Very young
children first produce single words which they gradually combine into simple
sentences (i.e., one subject and one verb that contains a complete thought; e.g.,
Mommy walked the dog.). Complex sentences first emerge in spoken language
in children who are typically-developing (TD) between the ages of three and
four years (Paul & Norbury, 2012); complex sentences emerge as children need
to express increasingly complex ideas. For example, children learn to combine
different forms of verbs such as adding the infinitive to a main verb (e.g., I like
ice cream might become I like to eat ice cream) and to modal auxiliary verbs (e.g.,
I would like to eat ice cream). These more sophisticated utterances represent more
efficient ways to communicate thoughts. They learn to use more specific con-
nector words and verbs that allow embedding of clauses within sentences (e.g.,
that, if, when, before, because), thus adding depth and specificity to their com-
munication efforts. Spoken simple sentences gradually develop into complex
sentences from early childhood through adulthood (e.g., Mommy walked the
dog when I was at school).
School-age children are exposed to increasing complexity in sentences
as they read higher level textbooks and are required to express more complex
ideas in depth during academic writing and speaking. Students with LDs who
experience written language difficulties are less likely to have access to the lan-
guage of academic texts. With fewer models and experiences than TD peers in-
teracting with complex sentences on higher-level topics, students with LDs may
be less likely to appropriately use complex sentences (Nippold, 2014).

57
Insights into Learning Disabilities 17(1), 55-70, 2020

Finally, increasing evidence suggests that the level of complexity of sen-

tences used depends upon the organizational structure or type of essay being
produced (i.e. genre). Fewer complex sentences are typically produced when
writing stories; complex sentences appear with more frequency in various types
of expository essays (e.g., sequential, descriptive, compare-contrast, persuasive;
Nippold et al., 2008; Scott & Windsor, 2000; Verhoeven et al., 2002). Persua-
sive essays require the most frequent use of complex sentences (Beers & Nagy,
2011; Brimo & Hall-Mills, 2019).
Persuasive Discourse
Persuasive discourse is considered to be the most challenging discourse
type for all students. It develops gradually through engagement in social inter-
actions in which the perspectives of others must be recognized and addressed.
Further, the persuader must give multiple reasons to support the position in a
logical way. Through the process of persuading others, students demonstrate
critical academic and social thinking about controversial and relevant topics
(Nippold et al., 2008).
More information is known about the written persuasive abilities of
school-age children (Dobbs, 2014; Ferretti, MacArthur, & Dowdy, 2000; Gra-
ham, Harris, & Mason, 2005; Nippold, Ward-Lonergan, & Fanning, 2005; Uc-
celli, Dobbs, & Scott, 2013). Better persuasive writers generate longer essays that
contain more complex words, more complex sentences, provide more and varied
reasons for their viewpoints, more specific use of words that connect ideas and
that indicate uncertainty (e.g., it might be…) and include the opposing view-
point. Further, as students move through the grades, their sentences increase in
complexity, type and length; they include more adverbial connector words (e.g.,
finally), more abstract nouns, and verbs that reflect thinking and talking (e.g.,
argue, thought; Nippold, Ward-Lonergan, & Fanning, 2005). Some informa-
tion is known about the spoken persuasive language characteristics of children
who are typically-developing in grades 5 through 9 (Gilabert, Garcia-Mila, &
Felton, 2013; Koonce, 2015; Moran, Kirk, & Powell, 2012; Westerveld & Mo-
ran, 2011). For example, as children who are TD move through the elementary
grades, their spoken persuasion becomes longer and more complex.
Interconnections between spoken and written persuasive language
Although several studies have examined spoken persuasive language
separately from written persuasive language, few studies have compared spoken
and written persuasive discourse in school-age children using language sample
analyses discussed above (Brimo & Hall-Mills, 2019; Hidi & Hildyard, 1983).
Hidi and Hildyard found that elementary children in grades 3 and 5 who were
typically developing wrote and spoke persuasively with similar flow and con-
nections between ideas. The research design was a between-subjects design; one
group of children provided the written samples and a different group of children

58
 Insights into Learning Disabilities 17(1), 55-70, 2020

provided the spoken samples. Groups may not have been equivalent in other
areas, thus challenging the validity of the findings.
More recently, Brimo and Hall-Mills (2019) gathered two spoken and
two written persuasive language samples in the same group of 64 9th grade stu-
dents, 9 of whom were diagnosed with LDs. The language samples were tran-
scribed from handwritten or videotaped samples and analyzed for the complex-
ity of sentences. To analyze sentence complexity, language samples were broken
into sentences and independent and dependent clauses were identified and
counted. A variety of types of grammatical constructions were counted as com-
plex including sentences that contained an independent clause only, a depen-
dent clause only and combined independent and dependent clauses. Dependent
clauses were counted as dependent when they included a variety of higher level
grammatical components. Consistent with Hidi and Hildyard’s (1983) findings
for elementary-aged children’s use of persuasive language, Brimo and Hall-Mills
found that high school students used a similar amount of complex sentences in
both spoken and written persuasion.
The above sample of 9th grade students contained a range of abilities.
However, students with LDs made up only 14% of the sample. Adolescents
with LDs show different patterns of strengths and weaknesses from TD stu-
dents (Green, 2009; Scott & Windsor, 2000). Given the academic and language
challenges facing students with LDs, teaching strategies should be driven by
knowledge of existing patterns of characteristics. Teachers, other educators, par-
ents, and SLPs may not have access to computerized language sample analysis
programs. However, we can recognize (or learn to quickly recognize) complex
vs. simple sentences within language samples. We also are trained to recognize
grammatical correctness (i.e., adherence to the accepted rules of formal English
grammar).
Perhaps, classifying students’ written and spoken sentences as either
simple or complex and noting the grammatical correctness of those sentences
would be more functional for educators. A coding system that measures both
the complexity and the correctness of each sentence could be used by teachers,
other educators and SLPs jointly. Nelson, Barr and Van Meter’s (2004) sen-
tence complexity coding system provides a descriptive method of examining
sentence complexity and the grammatical correctness of the sentences produced.
Sentences can be coded as complex correct, simple correct, complex incorrect
(grammatically) and simple incorrect (grammatically). With this knowledge,
teams of educators in the schools can begin to have common ground for mak-
ing decisions about which sentence level goals to address and in what modality
(speaking or writing or both).

59
Insights into Learning Disabilities 17(1), 55-70, 2020

Purpose
Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare sentence complexity
and grammatical correctness in the persuasive spoken and written discourse of
high school students with LDs. Knowledge of similarities and differences will
provide a springboard to the collaborative development of more efficient instruc-
tional approaches that use persuasive language strengths to remediate persuasive
language weaknesses. This study focuses on the following research questions:
1) Are there differences in the complexity of sentence types in spoken
and written persuasive language in high school students with LDs?
2) Are there differences in the grammatical correctness of simple and
complex sentences produced in spoken vs. written persuasive lan-
guage samples?
Method
Participants
Participants were 27 students enrolled in 9th (12 students), 10th (10
students), and 11th (5 students) grades at a Title 1 school in the United States.
All participants were receiving special education services for learning disabilities
in reading or writing and were enrolled in an English class designed for students
with learning disabilities. Eighteen were male students and nine were female
students.
Procedure
Institutional Review Board approval was received. After receipt of signed
consents, participants watched short videos to provide background information
on the topics, and provided one written and one spoken sample. Samples were
transcribed from handwriting and videotape before being analyzed.
Writing and speaking prompts. Participants viewed two short videos
on animal welfare and were instructed to persuade their congresswoman to be-
lieve what they believed about animal welfare based on the information from
the videos. Both videos were obtained from news clips. The informational video
(8:29 minutes long) that preceded the writing activity examined the pros and
cons of keeping orca whales in captivity. The video (7:11 minutes long) that pre-
ceded the speaking activity examined the pros and cons of hunting and killing
wolves who were attacking livestock. After viewing each video, participants were
asked to persuade their congresswoman to believe what they believed. Should
orca whales be kept in captivity or should they be set free? Should wolves be
hunted and killed or should they be allowed to roam free?
Obtaining samples. After watching each video, students immediately
provided language samples. Written samples were obtained in the classroom in
groups prior to obtaining the spoken sample. After watching the orca video,
participants were given 30 minutes to write a persuasive letter. After watching

60
 Insights into Learning Disabilities 17(1), 55-70, 2020

the wolf video, spoken samples were videotaped individually by trained gradu-
ate students using GoPro2 cameras. Spoken samples were taken after the written
samples in quiet rooms across the school and students were told to take the time
they needed to formulate their ideas before talking.
Transcribing and Coding. Spoken and written samples were tran-
scribed in Word by trained graduate students. Transcribed samples were manu-
ally coded by one of the authors. Salutations, mazes, and closing remarks (i.e.
Dear Congresswoman, um, thank you, etc.) were excluded in the transcription
of the samples. Sentences were coded as simple or complex and grammatically
correct or incorrect (i.e., simple incorrect, simple correct, complex incorrect,
complex correct); please see Table 1 for an explanation of our sentence complex-
ity coding system adapted from Nelson, Bahr, & Van Meter, p. 397).
We defined grammatical correctness as adherence to the established
rules of formal English grammar. Run-on sentences with no clear pauses in spo-
ken language or punctuation in written language were separated using rules for
calculating T-units (i.e., one independent clause and one dependent or embed-
ded clause formed one complex utterance). Spelling mechanics were ignored in
accordance with previous research. We also calculated the total number of words
(TNW), total number of sentences produced, total number of T-units (i.e., one
independent clause plus the dependent clauses attached to or embedded within
it; Hunt, 1970), and mean length of T-unit in words (MLTU; e.g., total number
of T-units/TNW). Finally, a graduate student was trained and conducted coding
reliability. Twenty-two percent of samples were judged and coded for reliability:
interrater reliability = .88; intrarater reliability = .92.

61
Insights into Learning Disabilities 17(1), 55-70, 2020

Table 1. Explanation of Sentence Coding System (adapted from Nelson, Bahr &
Van Meter, 2004).

Sentence Type Definition Example

Simple Grammatically incorrect “They won’t eat others animal.”
Incorrect (SI) simple sentence “There just makes me sick.”
Simple Correct Grammatically correct “The environment needs wolves.”
(SC) sentence with one inde- “It’s not fair.”
pendent clause
Complex Grammatically incorrect “I think you should let the killer
Incorrect (CI) complex sentence. whale go free so they can’t kill
none anymore.”
Complex Grammatically correct
Correct (CC) sentence that includes any
of the following:

(1) Two independent (1) “You wouldn’t like it and the

clauses joined with and, whales hate it.”
but or so

(2) An independent clause (2) “I think killer whales should

and a dependent clause be set free because just imagine
joined with because, since what it would be like if someone
or while kept you locked up.”

(3) An independent clause (3) “I mean I don’t hear about the

that contains an embedded other whales killing people.”
phrase with a secondary
nonfinite verb that is un-
marked for person, tense
and number (gerunds,
infinitives and participles)

(4) An independent clause (4) “They need to be free in the

that contains a compound ocean with their families.”
verb phrase

Note. Incorrect grammatical constructions are in boldface.

Analyzing the data. We analyzed the data descriptively and quantita-

tively. Descriptively, we calculated the means, standard deviations and ranges of
the above variables. We further calculated the percentage of complex correct,

62
 Insights into Learning Disabilities 17(1), 55-70, 2020

complex incorrect, simple correct and simple incorrect sentences produced in

speaking vs. writing. We used a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to
test the null hypothesis that the mean of the variables (i.e., the centroid of the
multivariate matrix of all the measurements) is the same between the spoken
and written persuasive samples in the population. We used Wilk’s lambda as a
test statistic.

Results
Twenty-seven high school students with LDs provided one written and
one spoken persuasive language sample. Sentence complexity (simple vs com-
plex), total number of T-units, mean length of T-units, and total number of
words and sentences produced were measured. Descriptive statistics for each of
these measures are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations and Ranges of Spoken vs Written Variables

(n=27)

Spoken Written
Variable M SD Range M SD Range
TNW 54.11 4.58 7-166 58.11 31.51 12-137
# T-Units 4.74 3.93 1-15 4.96 2.51 1-12
MLTU 11.39 5.65 3-28 11.68 2.49 6-17
# Sentences 3.96 3.36 1-14 4.19 2.41 1-11

Note. M = Mean; SD =Standard Deviation; TNW = Total Number of Words; #

T-Units = Number of T-Units; MLTU = Mean Length of T-Units; # Sentences =
Number of Sentences.

Question 1: Are there differences in the complexity of sentence types in spo-

ken and written persuasive language in high school students with LDs?
Because the variables were highly correlated, we conducted a principal
component analysis to extract the main principal components that explained
99.117% of the variation in the original variables. We then created a biplot that
showed the relative position of each set of both spoken and written measure-
ments of persuasive skills, respectively (See Figure 2). The figure clearly shows
a large overlap between spoken and written measurements, with the red and
green ellipses, which represent the boundaries of the normal distribution within
1 standard deviation in both dimensions. The arrows also indicate the loadings
of the original variables on the principal components. Principal component 1 is
positively correlated with the number of words, sentences, T-units and complex

63
Insights into Learning Disabilities 17(1), 55-70, 2020

sentences used. Principal component 2 is positively correlated with the mean

length of T-units and negatively correlated with the number of simple sentences.

Figure 1. Results of the principal component analysis showing an overlap

of the range of principal component scores based on the measurements on
both spoken and written persuasive skills. Var. = Variance; PC1 = Principal
Component 1; PC2 = Principal Component 2. Arrows indicate the loadings of
the original variables on the principal component axes.

We then conducted a MANOVA on the principal components we ex-

tracted for each set of spoken or written measurements. Using the MANOVA,
we tested the null hypothesis that the centroid of the set of principal compo-
nents would be the same between spoken and written measurements. We found
no statistically significant differences [F (6, 47) = .80, p = 0.57, Wilks’ Λ = .91].
When combined with a visual inspection of Figure 1, our findings suggest that
there was not a significant difference between the spoken and written measures
of sentence complexity.

64
 Insights into Learning Disabilities 17(1), 55-70, 2020

Question 2: Are there differences in the grammatical correctness of simple

and complex sentences produced in spoken vs. written persuasive language
samples?
To answer Question 2, we calculated the total number of sentences pro-
duced in spoken persuasion (107) and the total number of sentences produced
in written persuasion (113). Next, we classified the number of complex and
simple sentences produced into those which were judged to be either grammati-
cally correct or grammatically incorrect. The numbers produced in each spoken
and written category are displayed graphically in Figure 2 to indicate the pro-
portions of grammatically correct and incorrect simple and complex sentences
within each modality.

Figure 2. Proportion of complex vs. simple sentences and correct vs. incorrect
grammar

Discussion
Main Findings in Light of Current Research
We examined persuasive language samples to determine whether com-
plex sentences were produced with similar frequency in the writing and speaking
of high school students with LDs. We found no differences in complex sentence
production between spoken and written persuasion in high school students with
LDs. Our findings are consistent with findings in the persuasive genre for high
school students who were mostly TD (Brimo & Hall-Mills, 2019; Hall-Mills &
Apel, 2013). The similarities in persuasive sentence complexity across a range
of high school students (with and without LDs) support the interconnections

65
Insights into Learning Disabilities 17(1), 55-70, 2020

between academic speaking and academic writing. Both persuasive speaking

and persuasive writing require the use of complex sentences to express complex
thinking and ideas. High school students produce persuasive discourse using
complex sentences across both language modalities.
In contrast to the findings of Brimo and Hall-Mills (2019), our partici-
pants with LDs generated fewer sentences in both writing and speaking than did
their students who were mostly TD. The mostly TD sample produced an aver-
age of 11 spoken sentences and 13 written sentences. In contrast, our students
with LDs produced an average of 4 sentences in both modalities. It is possible
that these differences can be attributed to the use of different prompts or topics
between the studies or different methods of elicitation of the samples.
However, the reduced number of sentences produced overall is in keep-
ing with multiple studies of the writing abilities of students with LDs; they write
across a variety of genres and ages with fewer words, fewer ideas and less com-
plexity than students who are TD. It is also likely that the reduced sentence pro-
duction is due, in part, to the unique requirements of the language of academic,
higher level texts. Known written language deficits of students with LDs may in-
hibit adequate access to the language of textbooks. Without independent access
to higher level texts, the number and quality of opportunities to independently
engage with and practice using academic and less familiar language is limited.
In addition to examining the frequency of production of complex vs.
simple sentences, we examined the proportions produced of each, as well as the
proportions that were judged to be grammatically correct vs. incorrect. Overall,
75% of the spoken samples and 84% of the written samples contained complex
sentences. Again, our findings are consistent with the findings of Brimo and
Hall-Mills (2019) in which the majority of sentences in both modalities were
complex.
Turning to our findings regarding grammatical correctness, our par-
ticipants produced similar proportions of spoken and written simple sentences
that were incorrect (3% of all written sentences and 5% of all spoken sentences).
However, they produced more complex sentences that were judged to be gram-
matically incorrect; 26% of the spoken samples and 33% of the written samples
contained complex sentences with incorrect grammar. Thus, students with LDs
are using complex sentences in persuasive discourse. The use of complex sen-
tences indicates that students with LDs generate complex ideas but may not yet
be able to use the range of syntactic conventions of formal English when formu-
lating complex sentences. This is a good sign (Nunan, 2005); complex sentences
are already being produced.
A review of which grammatical rules were violated is beyond the scope
of our study. Perhaps the persuasive task stressed the language systems and re-
vealed sentence level deficiencies. Regardless of the reason, it’s important to find

66
 Insights into Learning Disabilities 17(1), 55-70, 2020

out how well students communicate in real world situations that are more de-
manding than conversational tasks. With this knowledge, we can continue to
address weaknesses that occur in more natural situations. Growing evidence sug-
gests that working on grammatical deficits using workbook-like exercises does
not transfer or generalize to student’s writing (Yilmaz, 2018). Yet, students con-
tinue to need multiple practice opportunities and multiple exposures to higher
level, academic language.
The similarities between spoken and written persuasion may give us a
starting point to build both spoken and written persuasive language simultane-
ously. For example, presenting a controversial topic and having the students for-
mulate their opinions in peer groups through discussions, completing a graphic
organizer to guide the arguments, and sharing them verbally with other peer
groups incorporates both speaking and writing. Additionally, these combined
activities highlight that writing is a process and involves explicit and implicit so-
cial interactions between the writer/speaker and the reader/listener (Graham &
Harris, 2013). Although it has yet to be proven, students with LDs may benefit
from explicit use of the typical recursive cycle of engagement between speaking
and writing that is thought to occur implicitly in children who are typically de-
veloping. Gains in speaking might scaffold and support writing and vice versa.
With multiple exposures to language in both speaking and writing, the ability to
retrieve information from long term memory and manipulate it to express more
complex ideas using appropriate grammar may develop with increased automa-
ticity. With increased automaticity and exposure to more complex language,
grammatical correctness may also increase.
Limitations and Future Directions
The sample size was small and the students came from the same school
limiting the generalizability of the results. Further, we were unable to obtain
participant medical or educational backgrounds, including dates of diagnoses,
history of services received, etc. Background information and additional data
pertaining to the participants would provide a better overall picture of our par-
ticipants and, perhaps, increase generalizability of findings. Persuasive samples
on a variety of topics should be obtained in the future to ensure valid findings.
Conclusions
Positive outcomes for students with LDs are dependent upon effective
collaborations between educators and specialists, including SLPs. All those who
work with our students need an understanding of the characteristics of the dis-
ability and each other’s roles on the team. Special education roles and service de-
livery models in the schools are changing (IDEA, 2004). Traditionally, educators
have commonly addressed written language difficulties while SLPs separately
have addressed spoken conversational language difficulties.

67
Insights into Learning Disabilities 17(1), 55-70, 2020

Yet the Common Core Standards (2010), professional ethics statements

and roles and responsibilities documents require an integrated approach to re-
mediation (ASHA, 2001). Collectively, growing evidence supports viewing lan-
guage holistically across writing and speaking (Cirrin et al., 2010; Murphy et
al., 2016). If special education teams work together both collaboratively and
complementarily, then we might more efficiently increase both speaking and
writing persuasively.
References
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2001). Roles and responsibilities of speech-lan-
guage pathologists with respect to reading and writing in children and adolescents [Position
Statement]. www.asha.org/policy.
Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2009). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing qual-
ity: Which measures? Which genre? Reading and Writing, 22, 185–200.
Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2011). Writing development in four genres from grades three to sev-
en: Syntactic complexity and genre differentiation. Reading and Writing, 24, 183–202.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9264-9
Berry, C., & Brizee, A. (2010). Identifying independent and dependent clauses. Purdue OWL.
Brimo, D., & Hall-Mills, S. (2019). Adolescents’ production of complex syntax in spoken and
written expository and persuasive genres. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 33, 237–255.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02699206.2018.1504987
Carlisle, J. F. (2010). Effects of instruction in morphological awareness on literacy achieve-
ment: An integrative review. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 464–487. https://doi.
org/10.1598/RRQ.45.4.5
Cirrin, F. M., Schooling, T. L., Nelson, N. W., Diehl, S. F., Flynn, P. E., Staskowski, M., Torrey,
T. Z., & Adamczyk, D. F. (2010). Evidence-based systematic review: effects of differ-
ent service delivery models on communication outcomes for elementary school-age
children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41, 233–264. https://doi.
org/10.1044/0161-1461(2009/08-0128)
Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSS). (2010). Common core state standards for English
language arts. www.corestandards.org.
Crowhurst, M. (1983). Syntactic complexity and writing quality: A review. Canadian Journal of
Education, 8, 1–16.
Dobbs, C. L. (2014). Signaling organization and stance: Academic language use in middle grade
persuasive writing. Reading and Writing, 27, 1327–1352.
Ferretti, R. P., MacArthur, C. A., & Dowdy, N. S. (2000). The effects of an elaborated goal on the
persuasive writing of students with learning disabilities and their normally achieving
peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 694–702. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.92.4.694
Gilabert, S., Garcia-Mila, M., & Felton, M. K. (2013). The effect of task instructions on students’
use of repetition in argumentative discourse. International Journal of Science Education,
35, 2857–2878. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.663191
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2013). Designing an effective writing program. In S. Graham, C.
MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction: Second Edition
(p. 8). New York, NY: Guilford.

68
 Insights into Learning Disabilities 17(1), 55-70, 2020

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge
and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy devel-
opment. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 207–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cedpsych.2004.08.001
Green, L. (2009). The nature of writing difficulties in students with language/learning Disabili-
ties. Perspectives, 16, 4–8. https://doi.org/10.1044/lle16.1.4
Hall-Mills, S., & Apel, K. (2013). Narrative and expository writing of adolescents with language-
learning disabilities: A pilot study. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 34, 135–143.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740112465001
Hidi, S. E., & Hildyard, A. (1983). The comparison of oral and written productions in two discourse
types. Discourse Processes, 6, 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538309544557
Hunt, K. (1970). Syntactic maturity in schoolchildren and adults. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, 35, iii–iv+1–67. https://doi.org/10.2307/1165818
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
Koonce, N. M. (2015). When it comes to explaining: A preliminary investigation of expository
language skills of African-American school-age children. Topics in Language Disorders,
35, 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0000000000000048
Maurer, J. (2012). Focus on grammar 5: An integrated skills approach, (3rd ed.). White Plains, NY.
Pearson.
Moran, C., Kirk, C., & Powell, E. (2012). Spoken persuasive discourse abilities of adolescents
with acquired brain injury. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 43, 264–
275. https://doi.org/ 10.1044/0161-1461(2011/10-0114)
Murphy, A., Franklin, S., Breen, A., Hanlon, M., McNamara, A., Bogue, A…James, E. (2016). A
whole class teaching approach to improve the vocabulary skills of adolescents attending
mainstream secondary school, in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage. Child Language
Teaching and Therapy, 33, 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659016656906
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2011 (NCES
2012-470). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education. Retrieved from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/writing_2011
Nelson, N., Bahr, C., Van Meter, A. (2004). The writing lab approach to language instruction and
intervention. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Nippold, M. A. (2014). Language intervention at the middle school: Complex talk reflects com-
plex thought. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 45, 153–156. https://
doi.org/10.1044/2014_LSHSS-14-0027
Nippold, M. A., Hesketh, L. J., Duthie, J. K., & Mansfield, T. C. (2005). Conversational versus
expository discourse: A study of syntactic development in children, adolescents, and
adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 1048–1064. https://doi.
org/ 10.1044/1092-4388(2005/073)
Nippold, M. A., Mansfield, T. C., Billow, J. L., & Tomblin, J. B. (2008). Expository discourse
in adolescents with language impairments: Examining syntactic development. Ameri-
can Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17, 356–366. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-
0360(2008/07-0049)
Nippold, M. A., Ward-Lonergan, J. M., & Fanning, J. L. (2005). Persuasive writing in chil-
dren, adolescents and adults: A study of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic develop-
ment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 125–138. https://doi.
org/10.1044/0161-1461(2005/012)
Nunan, S. L. (2005). Forgiving ourselves and forging ahead: Teaching grammar in a new millen-
nium. The English Journal, 94, 70–75. https://doi.org/10.2307/30046463

69
Insights into Learning Disabilities 17(1), 55-70, 2020

Paul, R., & Norbury, C. F. (2012). Language Disorders from Infancy through Adolescence: Listening,
Speaking, Writing, and Communicating. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.
Pennington, B., & Bishop, D. (2009). Relations among speech, language and reading disorders.
Child: Care, Health and Development, 35, 586–586. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
psych.60.110707.163548
Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R., Mcnurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S.
(2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32, 155–
175. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2001.9651596
Scarborough, H. S. (2005). Developmental relationships between language and reading: Rec-
onciling a beautiful hypothesis with some ugly facts. In H.W. Catts & A. G. Kamhi
(Eds.), The connections between language and reading disabilities (pp 3–24). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Scott, C. M. (2009). A case for the sentence in reading comprehension. Language, Speech,
and Hearing Services in the Schools, 40, 184–191. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-
1461(2008/08-0042)
Scott, C. M. (2011). Assessment of language and literacy: A process of hypothesis testing for in-
dividual differences. Topics in Language Disorders, 31, 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1097/
TLD.0b013e31820a100d
Scott, C. M., & Windsor, J. (2000). General language performance measures in spoken and
written narrative and expository discourse of school age children with language learning dis-
abilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 324–339. https://doi.
org/10.1044/jslhr.4302.324
Snowling, M. J. (2005). Literacy outcomes for children with oral language impairments: Devel-
opmental interactions between language skills and learning to read. In H.W. Catts & A.
G. Kamhi (Eds.), The connections between language and reading disabilities (pp. 55–75).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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,
36–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088312469013
Verhoeven, L., Aparici, M., Cahana-Amitay, D., Hell, J. V., Kriz, S., & Viguie-Simon, A. (2002).
Clause packaging in writing and speech: A cross-linguistic developmental analysis.
Written Language & Literacy, 5, 135–161. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.5.2.02ver
Westerveld, M. F., & Moran, C. A. (2011). Expository language skills of young school-age chil-
dren. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 42, 182–193. https://doi.
org/10.1044/0161-1461
Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child De-
velopment, 69, 848–872. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06247.x
Yilmaz, A. (2018). Form-meaning-use framework in grammar teaching: Research on noun clauses
in writing skills. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14, 37–55.

Authors’ Note
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Eliza-
beth Wilson-Fowler, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders,
Eastern Washington University, Spokane, WA 99202. Email: ewilsonfowler@
ewu.edu

70