Comparison of reading-writing patterns and performance of students with and without reading difficulties

  1. Fidalgo Redondo, Raquel
  2. Torrance, Mark
  3. Arias Gundín, Olga
  4. Martínez Cocó, Begoña
Journal:
Psicothema

ISSN: 0214-9915

Year of publication: 2014

Volume: 26

Issue: 4

Pages: 442-448

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Psicothema

Abstract

Background: This paper analyses performance and the process used in carrying out a common hybrid task, such as, summarizing a text, from a developmental point of view and comparing the differences between students with and without reading difficulties. Method: 548 students typically developing and 54 students with learning difficulties for reading (grades 5 to 8, ages 11 to 14) read and summarized a text using the triple task technique and then they did a comprehension questionnaire. Attention was paid to the various activities undertaken during this task, their cognitive cost, and the organization of reading and writing activities throughout the exercise, together with performance through evaluation of the summary and the reading comprehension questionnaire. Results: There were no significant differences in performance or strategies used for the task between students of primary and secondary education. A linear reading-writing process was mostly employed by both, with greater cost and time needed by primary students. Students with reading difficulties did not show any strategies compensating for the greater difficulty and cognitive cost that the task represents for them. Conclusions: The effective and strategic use of summarizing as a learning tool seems to demand a specific training for students with or without reading difficulties.

Bibliographic References

  • Delaney, Y. (2008). Investigating the reading-to-write construct. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 140-150.
  • Brown, A.L., Day, J.D., & Jones, R.S. (1983). The development of plans for summarizing texts. Child Development, 49, 1076-1088.
  • Brown, A.L., & Day, J.D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 22, 1-14.
  • Cattell, R.B., & Cattell, A.K.S. (2001). Factor “g” Escala 2 [g Factor scale 2]. Madrid: TEA (10ª edición; 1ª edición de 1977).
  • Elosua, P., & Mújica, J. (2013). Invariance levels across language versions of the PISA 2009 reading comprehension test in Spain. Psicothema, 25(3), 390-395.
  • Fidalgo, R., Torrance, M., & Robledo, P. (2011). Comparación de dos programas de instrucción estratégica y autorregulada para la mejora de la composición escrita [Comparison of two strategic and self-regulated instructional programs for improving writing]. Psicothema, 23(4), 672-680.
  • García, J.N., & Arias, O. (2004). Intervención en estrategias de revisión del mensaje escrito [Intervention in revising composition strategies]. Psicothema, 16(2), 194-202.
  • Gutiérrez, M., & Avero, P. (1995). Ansiedad, estrategias auxiliares y comprensión lectora: déficit de procesamiento vs falta de confianza [Anxiety, compensatory strategies and reading comprehension: Processing deficit vs. lack of confidence]. Psicothema, 7(3), 569-578.
  • Hayes, J.R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C.M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Kellogg, R.T. (1996). A model of Working Memory in Writing. In C.M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57-72). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Kintsch, W., & Rawson, K.A. (2005). Comprehension. In M.J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The Science of Reading (pp. 209-226). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Lenski, S.D., & Johns, J. (1997). Patterns of reading-to-write. Reading Research and Instruction, 37, 15-38.
  • Mateos, M., Martín, E., Villalón, R., & Luna, M. (2008). Reading and writing to learn in secondary education: Online processing activity and written products in summarizing and synthesizing tasks. Reading and Writing, 21, 675-697.
  • Mateos, M., & Solé, I. (2009). Synthesizing information from various texts: A study of procedures and products at different educational levels. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 4, 435-451.
  • McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 299-325.
  • McGinley, W. (1992). The role of reading and writing while composing from multiple sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 227-248.
  • Navas, M.J., & Urdaneta, E.J. (2011). PISA y el triángulo de la evaluación [PISA and the assessment triangle]. Psicothema, 23(4), 701-706.
  • O’Hara, K.P., Taylor, A., Newman, W., & Sellen, A. (2002). Understanding the Materiality of Writing from Multiple Sources. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56(3), 269-305.
  • Olive, T., Kellogg, R.T., & Piolat, A. (2002). The triple task technique for studying the process of writing. In T. Olive & C.M. Levy (Eds.), Contemporary tools and techniques for studying writing (pp. 31-60). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Ramos, J.L., & Cuetos, F. (2009). Evaluación de los procesos lectores en alumnos del tercer ciclo de Educación Primaria y Educación Secundaria Obligatoria-PROLEC-SE [Assessment of reading processes in third cycle of Primary Education and Compulsory Secondary Education-PROLEC-SE]. Madrid: TEA.
  • Solé, I., Mateos, M., Miras, M., Martín, E., Castells, N., Cuevas, I., et al. (2005). Lectura, escritura y adquisición de conocimientos en Educación Secundaria y Educación Universitaria [Reading, writing and knowledges acquisition in Secondary Education and University]. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 28(3), 329-347.
  • Soriano, M., Chebaani, F., Soriano, E., & Descals, A. (2011). Enseñanza recíproca y autoobservación del uso de estrategias: efectos sobre la comprensión de textos [Reciprocal teaching and self-monitoring of strategy use: Effects on reading comprehension]. Psicothema, 23(1), 38-43.
  • Spivey, N.N. (1997). The constructivist metaphor. Reading, writing and the making of meaning. San Diego: Academic Press.
  • Spivey, N.N., & King, J.R. (1989). Readers as writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 7-26.
  • Suárez, P., & Cuetos, F. (2012). ¿Es la dislexia un trastorno perceptivovisual? Nuevos datos empíricos [Is dyslexia a visual perceptive disorder? New empirical data]. Psicothema, 24(2), 188-192.
  • Tierney, R.J., & Shanahan, T. (1996). Research on the reading-writing relationship: Interactions, transactions and outcomes. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (pp. 246-280). New York: Longman.
  • Vidal-Abarca, E., Gilabert, R., Martínez, T., & Sellés, M.P. (2007). Test de estrategias de comprensión [Test of comprehension strategies]. Madrid: Instituto Calasanz de Ciencias de la Educación.
  • Wigent, C.A. (2013). High school readers: A profile of above average readers and readers with learning disabilities reading expository text. Learning and Individual Differences, 25, 134-140.
Data source: Dialnet