El perfil escritor como variable moduladora de los procesos involucrados en la composición escrita en estudiantes universitarios

  1. Arias-Gundín, Olga 1
  2. Fidalgo, Raquel 1
  1. 1 Universidad de León
    info

    Universidad de León

    León, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02tzt0b78

Journal:
EJIHPE: European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education

ISSN: 2174-8144,  2254-9625

Year of publication: 2017

Volume: 7

Issue: 1

Pages: 59-68

Type: Article

DOI: 10.30552/EJIHPE.V7I1.195 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: EJIHPE: European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education

Abstract

The two most well-defined writer profiles that have been found in writing research are planning and revising. In this study we analyse writing strategies and writing profiles of undergraduate students, and their influence in solving hybrid tasks; in this study took part 142 undergraduate students enrolled in three different university studies. To identify writer profile, students completed a Spanish version of Questionnaire Concerning their Planning and Revising Tendencies. We used two different hybrid tasks: summary and synthesis; we assessed in both tasks reading and writing process, level of underlined or take notes strategies, kind of draft and ideas generation. The results show that over 60% of students have a mixed writer profile with similar scores in both strategies, planning and revising, but they reported a higher level use in revising strategy. Likewise result show that the processes and strategies used by students are more complex depending on the difficulty of the task; while writing strategy that has greater influence is planning.

Bibliographic References

  • Citas Arroyo, R. (2013). Descripción de procesos en la composición escrita de estudiantes universitarios para un desarrollo multilingüe y tecnológico. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 31(1), 167-184.
  • Bangert-Drowns, R., Hurley, M., y Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-tolearn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29-58.
  • Finney, S.J., y DiStefano, C. (2006). Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. En G.R. Hancock y R.O. Muller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: a second course (pp. 269-314). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
  • Galbraith, D., y Torrance, M. (2004). Revision in the context of different drafting strategies. En G. Rijlaarsdam, L. Allal, L. Chanquoy y P. Largy (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes. Studies in writing, vol. 13 (pp. 63-85). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  • Gillespie, A., y Graham, S. (2014). A Meta-Analysis of witing interventions for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 80(4), 454-473.
  • Graham, S., Mckeown, D., Kiuhara, S., y Harris, K. (2012). A Meta-Analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 879-896.
  • Graham, S., y Perin, D. (2007). A Meta-Analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal od Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445-476.
  • Graham, S., y Sandmel, K. (2011). The process writing approach: A Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(6), 396-407.
  • Hayes, J. (2012). Modeling and Remodeling Writing. Written Communication, 29(3), 369-388.
  • Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., y van den Bergh, H. (2006). Writing as a learning tool: Testing the role of students’ writing strategies. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21(1), 17-34.
  • Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., y van den Bergh, H. (2008). An aptitude-treatment interaction approach to writing-to-lear. Learning and Instruction, 18, 379-390.
  • Martínez, I., Martín, E., y Mateos, M. (2011). Enseñar a leer y escribir para aprender en la Educación Primaria. Cultura y Educación, 23(3), 399-414.
  • Mateos, M., y Solé, I. (2009). Synthesising information from various text: A study of procedures and products at different educational levels. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24, 435-451.
  • Mateos, M., Martín, E., y Villalón, R. (2008). Reading and writting to learn in secondary education: online processing activity and writing products in summarizing and synthesizing task. Reading and Writing, 21, 675-697.
  • Newel, G.E. (2006). Writing to learn. How alternative theories off school writing account for the students performance. En C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham y J. Fitzgeral (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 235-257). New York: Guildford.
  • Spivey, N.N. (1997). Reading, writing and the making of meaning. The constructivist metaphor. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  • Torrance, M., Thomas, G.V., y Robinson, E.J. (1994). The writing strategies of graduate research students in the social sciences. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 27, 379- 392.
  • Torrance, M., Thomas, G.V., y Robinson, E.J. (1999). Individual differences in the writing behaviour of undergraduate students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 189-199.
  • Vargas, A. (2005). Escribir en la universidad: Reflexiones sobre el proceso de composición escrita en textos académicos. Lenguaje, 33, 97-125.
Data source: Dialnet