Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-31T08:16:13.830Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effectiveness of an Improvement Writing Program According to Students' Reflexivity Levels

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2014

Jesús Nicasio García  and
Ana Mª de Caso-Fuertes
Jesús Nicasio García*
Affiliation:
Universidad de León
Ana Mª de Caso-Fuertes
Affiliation:
Universidad de León
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jesús Nicasio García Sánchez, Departamento de Psicología, Sociología y Filosofía, Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación, Universidad de León, Campus de Vegazana, s/n, 44071 — León (Spain). E-mail: jn.garcia@unileon.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

After designing a writing program to enhance students' reflexivity and thus improve their compositions (García & de Caso, 2002a, 2002b), the aim of the research project was to show how reflexivity levels could influence the effectiveness of this program. This writing instruction through reflexivity was carried out with 5th and 6th grade students with learning disabilities (LD) and/or low achievement (LA) during 25 sessions. One hundred participants were assigned to either the experimental group (n = 49), which received specific intervention in writing and reflexivity, or the control group (n = 51), which simply received the ordinary curriculum. Both groups were assessed on the productivity and quality of their writing composition as well as their attitudes, self-efficacy, and reflexivity towards writing. The results show that coherence and reflexivity improved depending on the level of reflexivity, whereas the relationship with attitudes and self-efficacy is not so clear. Thus, it seems possible to improve LD and/or LA students' compositions by taking their reflexive style into account. Depending on the students' learning style, teachers should use either one or another technique.

Tras el diseño de un programa de escritura para incrementar la reflexividad del alumno hacia la misma y mejorar así sus composiciones escritas (García & de Caso, 2002a, 2002b), este estudio pretende mostrar cómo los niveles de reflexividad del alumno pueden influir en la eficacia de este programa. La instrucción en reflexividad hacia la escritura se llevó a cabo con alumnos con dificultades de aprendizaje y/o bajo rendimiento, de 5° y 6° de primaria, durante 25 sesiones. Los 100 participantes fueron asignados bien al grupo experimental (n = 49), que recibió el entrenamiento específico, bien al grupo control (n = 51), que sólo recibió currículum ordinario. Ambos grupos fueron evaluados tanto en productividad y calidad de las composiciones escritas como en actitudes, autoeficacia y reflexividad hacia la escritura. Los resultados muestran que no sólo la coherencia de los textos escritos sino también la reflexividad mejora dependiendo del nivel de reflexividad del alumno, mientras que la relación con actitudes y autoeficacia no está tan clara. De este modo, parece posible mejorar las composiciones escritas de los alumnos con dificultades de aprendizaje y/o bajo rendimiento teniendo en cuenta el estilo cognitivo de los mismos en nuestras intervenciones. Dependiendo de este estilo cognitivo, los profesores deben usar una u otra técnica.

Keywords

reflexivity towards writinglearning-disabled studentsprocess planningtext planningwriting instructionreflexividad hacia la escrituraestudiantes con dificultades de aprendizajeplanificación de procesosplanificación de textosinstrucción en escritura
Type
Articles
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , November 2007 , pp. 303 - 313
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alamargot, D., & Chanquoy, L. (2001) Through the models of writing. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amador, J.A., & Kirchenr, T. (2001). Children's Embedded Figures Test and Matching Familiar Figures Test-20: Factorial structure for boys and girls from 6 to 11 years old. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 93, 709–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, C.A., Britten, N., Barber, N., Bradley, C., & Stevenson, F. (1999). Using reflexivity to optimize teamwork in qualitative research. Qualitative health research, 9, 26–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bornas, X., & Servera, M. (1996). La impulsividad infantil. Madrid: Siglo XXI.Google Scholar
Bornas, X., Servera, M., & Llabrés, J. (1997). Prevención de la impulsividad y comportamiento estratégico en preescolares. Psicología Conductual, 5, 133–146.Google Scholar
Bruning, R., & Horn, C. (2000). Developing motivation to write. Educational Psychologist, 35, 25–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buela-Casal, G., Santos-Roig, M., & Carretero, H. (2000). Reflexividad frente a impulsividad en el rendimiento académico: un estudio longitudinal. Análisis y Modificación de Conducta, 26, 555–583.Google Scholar
Butler, D.L. (1998). Metacognition and learning disabilities. In Wong, B.Y.L. (Ed.), Learning about learning disabilities (2nd ed.) (pp. 277–307). Toronto: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Butler, D.L. (1999, April). The importance of explicit writing instruction for postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Council for Exceptional Children. Charlotte, North Carolina.Google Scholar
Butler, D.L., Elaschuk, C.L., & Poole, S. (2000). Promoting strategic writing by postsecondary students with learning disabilities: A report of three case studies. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 196–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cains, F.D. & Cammock, J. (1978). Development of a more reliable version of the Matching Familiar Figures Test. Developmental Psychology, 5, 555–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuetos, F. (1991). Psicología de la escritura. Madrid: Escuela Española.Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. (2002). Team innovation and team effectiveness: The importance of minority dissent and reflexivity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, R., Ranson, S., & Strain, M. (2002). Reflexivity: Towards a theory of lifelong learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 21, 525–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flower, L., & Hayes, J.R. (1981). Plans that guide the composing process. In Frederiksen, C.H. & Dominic, J.F. (Eds.), The nature, development and teaching of written communication. Vol. 2. Writing: Process. Development and communication (pp. 39–58). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
García, J.N., & de Caso, A.M. (2002a). Estrategias cognitivas en la composición escrita: ilustración de un programa de intervención. In González-Pienda, J.A., Núñez, J.C., Alvárez, L., & Soler, E. (Coords.), Estrategias de aprendizaje: concepto, evaluación e intervención (pp. 141–162). Madrid: Pirámide.Google Scholar
García, J.N., & de Caso, A.M. (2002b). ¿Es posible mejorar la composición en alumnos con dificultades de aprendizaje y/o bajo rendimiento sin que cambie la reflexividad hacia la escritura? Psicothema, 14, 456–462.Google Scholar
García, J.N., & de Caso, A.M. (2004). Effects of motivational intervention for improving the writing of children with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García, J.N., & de Caso, A. M. (2006). Changes in writing self-efficacy and writing products and processes through specific training in the self-efficacy beliefs of the learning disabled. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4, 1–27.Google Scholar
García, J.N., & Marban, J.M. (2003). El proceso de composición escrita en alumnos con DA y/o BR: estudio instruccional con énfasis en la planificación. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 26, 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García, J.N., Marbán, J.M., & de Caso, A.M. (2001). Evaluación colectiva de los procesos de planificación y factores psicológicos en la escritura. In García, J.N., Dificultades de aprendizaje e intervención psicopedagógica (pp. 151–155). Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Gargallo, B. (1991). Los procesos cognitivos y el aprendizaje. La reflexividad-impulsividad y el rendimiento académico. PAD'E, 1, 119–134.Google Scholar
Gargallo, B. (1993). ¿Es posible modificar la impulsividad en el aula?. Programas de acción educativa. Revista de Educación, 301, 245–268.Google Scholar
Gargallo, B. (1996). La intervencion pedagogica en el ámbito de la reflexividad. Un programa educativo para 2° de primaria. Bordón, 48), 225–238.Google Scholar
Graham, S., Harris, K.R., McArthur, C., & Schwartz, S. (1998). Writing instruction. In Wong, B.Y.L. (Ed.), Learning about learning disabilities (2nd ed.) (pp. 391–423). Toronto: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, B. (1998). Using reflective portfolios as a tool to teach writing to students with learning disabilities: A project for preservice teachers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 14, 307–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, J.R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In Levy, C.M. & Ransdell, S. (Eds.), The science of writing. Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hayes, J.R., & Nash, J.G. (1996). On the nature of planning in writing. In Levy, C.M. & Ransdell, S. (Eds.), The science of writing. Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 29–55). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. (1999). Reflective processes in a mathematics classroom with a rich learning environment. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 65–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Justicia, F. (1995). El desarrollo del vocabulario. Diccionario de frecuencias. Granada, Spain: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Granada.Google Scholar
Kagan, J. (1965a). Developmental studies in reflection and analysis. In Kidd, A.H. & Rivoire, J.H. (Eds.), Conceptual development in children (pp. 487–522). New York: International University Press.Google Scholar
Kagan, J (1965b). Reflection-impulsivity and reading ability in primary grade children. Child Development, 36, 609–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellogg, R.T. (1994). The psychology of writing. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kendall, P.C., Padever, W., & Zupan, B. (1980). Developing self-control in children. A manual of cognitive-behavioural strategies. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Mather, N., & Roberts, R. (1995). Informal assessment and instruction in written language: A practitioner's guide for students with learning disabilities. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Meichembaum, D., & Goodman, J. (1971). Training impulsive children to talk to themselves. A means of developing self-control. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 77, 115–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miras, M. (2000). La escritura reflexiva. Aprender a escribir y aprender acerca de lo que se escribe. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 89, 65–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page-Voth, V., & Graham, S. (1999): Effects of goal setting and strategy use on writing performance and self-efficacy of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 230–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, J., & Howes, D. (1998). The effect of cognitive style on learning to write a letter of complaint. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 243–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riding, R., & Agrell, T. (1997). The effect of cognitive style and cognitive skills on school subject performance. Educational Studies, 23, 311–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riding, R., & Al-Sanabani, S. (1998). The effect of cognitive style, age, gender and structure on the recall of prose passages. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riding, R., & Rayner, S. (1998): Cognitive styles and learning strategies. London: David Fulton.Google Scholar
Riding, R., & Watts, M. (1997). The effect of cognitive style on the preferred format of instructional material. Educational Psychology, 17, 179–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J.D., & Nelson, D.G.K. (1988). Is the more impulsive child a more holistic processor? A reconsideration. Child Development, 59, 719–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solís-Cámara, P., & Servera, M. (2003). Los efectos del modelo probabilística sobre el estilo cognitivo reflexividad-impulsividad. Psicothema, 15, 545–549.Google Scholar
Sorenson, S. (1997). Students' writing handbook (2nd ed.). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Wong, B., Butler, D., Ficzere, S., & Kuperis, S. (1996). Teaching students with learning disabilities and low achievers to plan, write and revise opinion essays. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 197–212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wong, B., Butler, D., Ficzere, S., & Kuperis, S. (1997). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities and low achievers to plan, write and revise, compare and contrast essays. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12, 2–15.Google Scholar