ABSTRACT
Se comparó la eficacia de dos versiones de un programa instruccional centrado en el desarrollo de un dominio estratégico y autorregulado de la composición escrita. En la versión completa, instrucción estratégica, se instruyó usando una combinación de instrucción directa centrada en el desarrollo del conocimiento metacognitivo (explícito, declarativo), modelado del profesor, práctica colaborativa e individual. En la segunda versión, de modelado, el componente de instrucción directa se omitió. Participaron 72 alumnos de 6º de Educación Primaria que recibieron la instrucción en el grupo de instrucción estratégica (N= 24), de modelado (N= 25), o currículum ordinario (N= 23). Se tomaron medidas pre-postest del producto textual, la autoeficacia y el autoconocimiento en la escritura. Los resultados indicaron una mejoría similar de ambos grupos de intervención frente al grupo control tanto en las medidas globales de la calidad textual como en las medidas objetivas basadas en el texto, asociadas a un enfoque más maduro del proceso de escritura, orientado al lector. No se encontraron diferencias entre ambos grupos de intervención. Los resultados obtenidos sugieren que el modelado y la práctica de escritura son suficientes para favorecer el desarrollo de estrategias efectivas de composición escrita en el alumnado de estas edades (AU)
This study compared the efficacy of two versions of an instructional program aimed at developing strategic and self-regulated writing competence. In the full version, strategy instruction, students were taught strategies for producing effective text, using a combination of direct (explicit, declarative, metacognitive knowledge) instruction, teacher modeling, and collaborative and individual practice. In a modeling-only version, direct instruction was omitted. 72 Spanish 6th grade students were taught in one of three groups: Full Strategy Instruction (N= 24); Modeling only (N= 25), and a normal curriculum (no strategy instruction) control (N= 23). Pre and posttest measures of written texts, self-efficacy and self-knowledge of writing were taken. Pre and posttest scores on writing ability tests indicated similar improvement in both intervention groups, relative to control, in both holistic measures of text quality and in counts of text features associated with mature, reader-focused composition. We found no differences between intervention groups. These findings suggest that modeling and student practice alone are sufficient to develop effective writing strategies in typically-developing 6th grade students (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Child , Programmed Instructions as Topic , Models, Educational , Strategic Planning , Self Efficacy , Handwriting , WritingABSTRACT
This study compared the efficacy of two versions of an instructional program aimed at developing strategic and self-regulated writing competence. In the full version, strategy instruction, students were taught strategies for producing effective text, using a combination of direct (explicit, declarative, metacognitive knowledge) instruction, teacher modeling, and collaborative and individual practice. In a modeling-only version, direct instruction was omitted. 72 Spanish 6th grade students were taught in one of three groups: Full Strategy Instruction (N=24); Modeling only (N=25), and a normal curriculum (no strategy instruction) control (N=23). Pre and posttest measures of written texts, self-efficacy and self-knowledge of writing were taken. Pre and posttest scores on writing ability tests indicated similar improvement in both intervention groups, relative to control, in both holistic measures of text quality and in counts of text features associated with mature, reader-focused composition. We found no differences between intervention groups. These findings suggest that modeling and student practice alone are sufficient to develop effective writing strategies in typically-developing 6th grade students.
