The online management of writing processes and their contribution to text quality in upper-primary students

  1. Paula López 1
  2. Mark Torrance 2
  3. Raquel Fidalgo 1
  1. 1 Universidad de León
    info

    Universidad de León

    León, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02tzt0b78

  2. 2 Nottingham Trent University
    info

    Nottingham Trent University

    Nottingham, Reino Unido

    ROR https://ror.org/04xyxjd90

Revista:
Psicothema

ISSN: 0214-9915,  1886-144X

Año de publicación: 2019

Volumen: 31

Número: 3

Páginas: 311-318

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Psicothema

Resumen

Antecedentes: el manejo temporal de los procesos de escritura es un factor importante que influye en la composición de textos de calidad. En este estudio se analiza el tiempo que los estudiantes de 5º-6º de Primaria dedican a los procesos de escritura, su distribución temporal durante la composición y en qué medida ambos aspectos contribuyen a la calidad textual. Método: 120 estudiantes de 5º-6º de Primaria escribieron un texto argumentativo en parejas usando pensamiento en voz alta. Las verbalizaciones fueron analizadas en base a diferentes procesos y subprocesos de escritura. Resultados: los estudiantes hacen escaso uso de procesos de planificación y revisión textual. La planificación, relacionada principalmente con la generación de información, suele activarse al inicio del proceso de escritura. La revisión, que básicamente implica lectura, aparece al final del proceso escritor. El tiempo empleado por los escritores en los diferentes procesos o el momento en que son activados durante la composición no se relaciona con la calidad textual. Conclusiones: los estudiantes de 5º-6º de Primaria no solo hacen un escaso uso de procesos de planificación y revisión, sino que este es ineficaz. Por ello, es necesario instruir al alumnado en el uso de dichos procesos desde edades tempranas.

€ Ver financiación

Información de financiación

The first author has benefited from a research grant (FPU13/06428) awarded by the Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte de España [Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport]. Also, this research was funded by Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad de España [Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness] grant (EDU2015-67484-P MINECO/FEDEP) awarded to the third author.

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Alves, R., Castro, S. L., & Olive, T. (2008). Execution and pauses in writing narratives: Processing time, cognitive effort and typing skill. International Journal of Psychology, 43(6), 969-979.
  • Arrimada, M., Torrance, M., & Fidalgo, R. (2018). Effects of teaching planning strategies to first-grade writers. British Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/bjep.12251
  • Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-9. Retrieved from http://CRAN. R-project. org/package= lme4.
  • Beal, C. (1996). The role of comprehension monitoring in children’s revision. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 219-238.
  • Beauvais, C., Olive, T., & Passerault, J. M. (2011). Why are some texts good and others not? Relationship between text quality and management of the writing processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 415428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022545.
  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Breetvelt, I., Van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1994). Relations between writing processes and text quality: When and how? Cognition and Instruction, 12, 103-123. doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1202_2
  • De La Paz, S., Swanson, H. L., & Graham, S. (1998). The contribution of executive control to the revising by students with writing and learning difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 448-460. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.90.3.448
  • Fidalgo, R., Torrance, M., & García, J.N. (2008). The long-term effects of strategy-focused writing instruction for grade six students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 672-693. doi. org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.09.001
  • Fidalgo, R., Torrance, M., & Robledo, P. (2011). Comparison of two selfregulated and strategic instructional programs for improving writing competence. Psicothema, 23(4), 672-680.
  • Fidalgo, R., Torrance, M., Arias-Gundín, O., & Martínez-Cocó, B. (2014). Comparison of reading-writing patterns and performance of students with and without reading difficulties. Psicothema, 26(4), 442-448.
  • Fidalgo, R., Torrance, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., van den Bergh, H., & Álvarez, M. L. (2015). Strategy-focused writing instruction: Just observing and reflecting on a model benefi ts 6th grade students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 37-50.
  • García, J. N., & Arias-Gundín, O. (2004). Intervention in writing composition strategies. Psicothema, 16(2), 194-202.
  • García, J. N., & de Caso-Fuertes, A. M. (2002). Is it possible to improve writing composition in learning disabilities (LD) and/or low achievement (LA) students without changes in reflexivity toward writing? Psicothema, 14(2), 456-462.
  • Gilbert, J., & Graham, S. (2010). Teaching writing to elementary students in grades 4 to 6: A national survey. The Elementary School Journal, 4, 494-518.
  • González-Seijas, R. M. (2003). A proposal on training cognitive processes and textual structures in children with writing disabilities. Psicothema, 15(3), 458-463.
  • Hayes, J. R. (2004). What triggers revision? In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Iniesta, A. J., López-López, J. A., Corbí 1, R. G., Pérez, P. M., & Costa, J. L. C. (2017). Differences in cognitive, motivational and contextual variables between underachieving, normally-achieving, and overachieving students: A mixed-effects analysis. Psicothema, 29(4), 533-538. doi:10.7334/psicothema2016.283
  • Kellogg, R. T. (1988). Attentional overload and writing performance: Effects of rough draft and outline strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 355-365.
  • Kellogg, R. T. (1990). Effectiveness of prewriting strategies as a function of task demands. The American Journal of Psychology, 327-342.
  • Kellogg, R. T. (2001). Competition for working memory among writing processes. American Journal of Psychology, 114, 175-191. doi:10.2307/1423513
  • Koster, M. P., Tribushinina, E., De Jong, P., & Van den Bergh, H. (2015). Teaching children to write: A meta-analysis of writing intervention research. Journal of Writing Research, 7(2), 299-324.
  • Levy, C. M., & Ransdell, S. (1995). Is writing as difficult as it seems?. Memory & Cognition, 23(6), 767-779.
  • Limpo, T., & Alves, R. A. (2013). Modeling writing development: Contribution of transcription and self-regulation to Portuguese students’ text generation quality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 401413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031391.
  • Limpo, T., Alves, R. A., & Fidalgo, R. (2014). Children’s high-level writing skills: Development of planning and revising and their contribution to writing quality. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 177193. doi:10.1111/bjep.12020
  • Olive, R., Kellogg, R. T., & Piolat, A. (2001). The triple task technique for studying the process of writing. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.), T. Olive & C. M. Levy (Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing: Volume 10: Contemporary tools and techniques for studying writing (pp. 31-59). Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht.
  • Penningroth, S. L., & Rosenberg, S. (1995). Effects of a high informationprocessing load on the writing process and the story written. Applied Psycholinguistics, 16(2), 189-210.
  • Piolat, A., Kellogg, R. T., & Farioli, F. (2001). The triple task technique for studying writing processes: On which task is attention focused? Current Psychology Letters Brain, Behavior and Cognition, 4, 67-83.
  • Roces, C., & Sierra, B. (2017). The effectiveness of a learning strategies program for university students. Psicothema, 29(4), 527-532. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2016.171
  • Spencer, S. L., & Fitzgerald, J. (1993). Validity and structure, coherence, and quality measure in writing. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 209231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10862969309547811.
  • Torrance, M., Fidalgo, R., & García, J.N. (2007). The teachability and effectiveness of cognitive self-regulation in sixth-grade writers. Learning and Instruction, 17(3), 265-285. doi:10.1016/j. learninstruc.2007.02.003
  • Torrance, M., Fidalgo, R., & Robledo, P. (2015). Do sixth-grade writers need process strategies? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(1), 91-112. doi:10.1111/bjep.12065
  • Van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1999). The dynamics of idea generation during writing: An online study. In G. Rijlaarsdam & E. Espéret (Series Eds.), M. Torrance, D. Galbraith (Eds.), Studies in writing: Knowing what to write: Cognitive perspectives on conceptual processes in text production (pp. 99-120). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
  • Van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2001). Changes in cognitive activities during the writing process, and relations with text quality. Educational Psychology, 21, 373-385. doi:10.1080/ 01443410120090777
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet