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

Zeitschrift:
Psicothema

ISSN: 0214-9915,  1886-144X

Datum der Publikation: 2019

Ausgabe: 31

Nummer: 3

Seiten: 311-318

Art: Artikel

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen Access editor

Andere Publikationen in: Psicothema

Zusammenfassung

Background: The online management of writing processes is an important factor related to the composition of high-quality texts. In the present study we analysed the time that upper-primary students devoted to writing processes, the distribution of those processes during composition and the contribution of both aspects to text quality. Method: 120 upper-primary students were asked to write an argumentative text in pairs under thinking aloud conditions. Verbalizations were analysed considering different writing processes and sub-processes. Results: Upper-primary students rarely used planning and revising processes. Planning, which basically involved content generation, was mostly activated at the beginning of the writing task. Revision, which mainly included reading, appeared at the end. The time devoted to writing processes or the time at which they were activated had no effect on text quality. Conclusions: Not only did upper-primary students make little use of planning and revising processes, it was also ineffective. Thus, there is a need to provide them with high-quality instruction in school from early on

€ Finanzierung ansehen

Informationen zur Finanzierung

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.

Geldgeber

Bibliographische Referenzen

  • 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