Do the benefits of learning to write a compare-contrast text transfer to other types of writing task? Analysing the effects of strategy-focused instruction / ¿Es posible transferir el aprendizaje de un texto de comparación-contraste a otro tipo de tareas? Análisis de los efectos de la instrucción estratégica

El programa de Instrucción de la Autorregulación Cognitiva (CSRI) se basa en la instrucción centrada en la estrategia e incluye tres componentes para la mejora del producto textual (enseñanza directa, modelado y práctica entre iguales). Se plantearon como objetivosanalizar si la instrucción con el programa CSRI en un género textual (texto de comparación) conducía a la transferencia espontánea en el producto textual (mejor coherencia, estructura y calidad) en un género no instruido (texto de opinión); y examinar si el orden de los componentes instruccionales presentaba algún efecto. Participaron 126 estudiantes de cuarto de educación primaria que fueron asignados a una de las dos condiciones experimentales en las que se aplicaba el programa CSRI (con diferente secuencia de los componentes instructivos), o a una condición de control en la que se seguía la enseñanza tradicional. Los resultados reflejaron que las dos secuencias de instrucción del programa CSRI mostraban beneficios en la estructura y coherencia del producto textual de los estudiantes en el posttest pero no 8 meses después. Para que los alumnos sean capaces de transferir adecuadamente lo aprendido a géneros textuales no instruidos, necesitan que los profesores les enseñen cómo hacerlo eficazmente.(AU)

Cognitive Self-Regulation Instruction (CSRI) program is a strategy-focused instruction with three instructional components for im-proving students’ writing product (direct teaching, modelling, and peer-practice). The present study aimed to explore whether the CSRI program leads to spontaneous transfer, improving the writing product (in terms of quality, structure, and text coherence) of an uninstructed genre (opinion text); and to examine whether the order in which the instructional compo-nents were implemented had an effect. A total of 126 students in their 4thyear of primary school participated in the study. They were randomly as-signed to one of two experimental conditions which received the CSRI but differed in the order the instructional components were delivered, or to a control condition which followed the traditional teaching approach. Our findings show that both CSRI sequences produced benefits in terms of greater structure and coherence of the writing product in the opinion text at post-test but not 8months after the intervention. In consequence, for students to be able to adequately transfer strategies to uninstructed text genres, they need teachers to teach them how to do it effectively.(AU)

Effects of Direct Instruction and Strategy Modeling on Upper-Primary Students' Writing Development.

Strategy-focused instruction is one of the most effective approaches to improve writing skills. It aims to teach developing writers strategies that give them executive control over their writing processes. Programs under this kind of instruction tend to have multiple components that include direct instruction, modeling and scaffolded practice. This multi-component nature has two drawbacks: it makes implementation challenging due to the amount of time and training required to perform each stage, and it is difficult to determine the underlying mechanisms that contribute to its effectiveness. To unpack why strategy-focused instruction is effective, we explored the specific effects of two key components: direct teaching of writing strategies and modeling of strategy use. Six classes (133 students) of upper-primary education were randomly assigned to one of the two experimental conditions, in which students received instruction aimed at developing effective strategies for planning and drafting, or control group with no strategy instruction: Direct Instruction (N = 46), Modeling (N = 45), and Control (N = 42). Writing performance was assessed before the intervention and immediately after the intervention with two tasks, one collaborative and the other one individual to explore whether differential effects resulted from students writing alone or in pairs. Writing performance was assessed through reader-based and text-based measures of text quality. Results at post-test showed similar improvement in both intervention conditions, relatively to controls, in all measures and in both the collaborative and the individual task. No statistically significant differences were observed between experimental conditions. These findings suggest that both components, direct teaching and modeling, are equally effective in improving writing skills in upper primary students, and these effects are present even after a short training.

Do sixth-grade writers need process strategies?

BACKGROUND: Strategy-focused writing instruction trains students both to set explicit product goals and to adopt specific procedural strategies, particularly for planning text. A number of studies have demonstrated that strategy-focused writing instruction is effective in developing writing performance. AIM: This study aimed to determine whether teaching process strategies provides additional benefit over teaching students to set product goals. SAMPLE: Ninety-four typically developing Spanish sixth-grade (upper primary) students. METHOD: Students received 10 hr of instruction in one of three conditions: Strategy-focused training in setting product goals and in writing procedures (planning and revision; Product-and-Process), strategy-focused training in setting product goals (Product-Only), and product-focused instruction (Control). Students' writing performance was assessed before, during, and after intervention with process measures based on probed self-report and holistic and text-analytic measures of text quality. RESULTS: Training that included process instruction was successful in changing students' writing processes, with no equivalent process changes in the Product-Only or Control conditions. Both Process-and-Product and Product-Only conditions resulted in substantial improvements in the quality of students' texts relative to controls, but with no evidence of benefits of process instruction over those provided by the Product-Only condition. Teaching process substantially increased time-on-task. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm the value of strategy-focused writing instruction, but question the value of training specific process strategies.