**2. Methodology**

#### **Participants**

Participants were selected from two types of origin, although interrelated. One group was the sample of teachers taken from a previous study. The other groups were the students (of these teachers) who were classified into three categories - with attention deficit disorder (ADD), and without hyperactivity (ADHD), with or without learning disabilities (LD).

The Quality of Teaching Determines Students' Achievement in Writing 179

The third criterion required the sample to be representative of the spectrum of the educational levels for the teachers studied. The aim was to relate the achievement in written composition to the data collected from the sample of teachers. However, before the third year of Primary Education there is a limited production or level of written composition. This study addressed from the third year of Primary Education on. That is to say, we only included students of second (third and fourth years) and third cycle (fifth and sixth year) of

After applying the three criteria, a sample of 111 students of 3rd to 6th year of Primary Education was extracted (78 males and 33 females). Of these, 35 students had LD, 36 did not present LD and 40 had ADHD. Their ages ranged from 9 to 12 years. The average of age of the sample of the second cycle was 10 years old and the average of age of the third cycle was

Student typology Students PE-2nd PE-3rd Total Level

Total Level 17 95 111

Table 1. Distribution of the sample of students by type, gender, age and cycle of Primary

The instruments employed were concerned with measuring the teachers' variables, that is to say, with the role of practice in the teaching of the written composition, and with the

Male 14 20 34 Female 3 3 6 Total Level 17 23 40

Male 20 19 Female 16 16 Total per Level 36 35

Male 25 25 Female 11 11 Total per Level 36 36

Average age 10 10.5 Min-Max 9-11 9-12

Average age 11 Min-Max 10-12

Average age 10.5 Min-Max 10-11

Primary Education in the sample.

ADHD Students

LD Students

Students without LD

Education.

**Instruments** 

measures of the students' variables.

11 years old. (For more details see Table 1).

#### **The teaching staff**

We evaluated 99 teachers from 30 private and state schools in the province of León, Spain, who teach Spanish language (the local first language) and are responsible for students with and without learning difficulties and/or low achievement, in the last year of infant education and the first three years of primary education.

The selection criterion for this sample was based on that used in previous studies the research team developed in these schools regarding different writing-related areas of interest - the influence of working memory and attention on students. The students addressed were both typically achieving and with learning difficulties, of different ages, with and without ADHD.

The teachers taught Spanish language to pupils in the second and third years of Primary Education, at 20 of the 30 private and state schools in the province of Leon, Spain. Of these teachers, 83.33% were women, 64.23% worked in state schools and 37.77% were employed by private schools. The average age of the teachers was 46.92 years, with a maximum age of 60 and a minimum of 27, which indicates both maturity and stability in the teaching career.

The average years of experience in this career was 23.43 years, which indicates significant educational experience. 18.84 of those years specifically devoted to language teaching. This means that they were experts in the instructional aspects related to teaching written composition. Only 12.4% had a bachelor's degree in philology or education and the remainder had a teaching degree in another specialist area. None of them had one in special education.

#### **The students**

The sample of students was selected in a similar fashion to the selection of the teachers. They were chosen following several strict criteria with the purpose of being able to match the sample with the needs and goals of this research project.

The first criterion was that the students selected receive classes from the teachers in the sample. This criterion was applied with the concurrent selection of the teachers, that is to say, the students and professors were selected simultaneously. The study was carried out independently by people different from those in the research Team on Excellence in Psycho-Educational Intervention in Developmental and Learning Difficulties directed by second author. This was done as if they were independent studies; with the aim of ensuring there was no interference in the results. This ensured the teacher's knowledge of the research objectives did not interfere, and there would be no bias resulting from the knowledge of the true object of this study.

The second criterion was to include students from the three categories, that is to say, students with LD, students without LD and/or students with ADHD. The latter group was recruited from the Association of Parents of People with ADHD in the province of Leon (ALENHI, Leon Association of People with Attention Deficit Disorder with and without Hyperactivity). In addition, discrepancies between achievement and IQ of the students with writing LD were found in the intelligence measures, but that was not the case for students without LD or with ADHD, which was relevant to the selection of the samples.

We evaluated 99 teachers from 30 private and state schools in the province of León, Spain, who teach Spanish language (the local first language) and are responsible for students with and without learning difficulties and/or low achievement, in the last year of infant

The selection criterion for this sample was based on that used in previous studies the research team developed in these schools regarding different writing-related areas of interest - the influence of working memory and attention on students. The students addressed were both typically achieving and with learning difficulties, of different ages,

The teachers taught Spanish language to pupils in the second and third years of Primary Education, at 20 of the 30 private and state schools in the province of Leon, Spain. Of these teachers, 83.33% were women, 64.23% worked in state schools and 37.77% were employed by private schools. The average age of the teachers was 46.92 years, with a maximum age of 60 and a minimum of 27, which indicates both maturity and stability in

The average years of experience in this career was 23.43 years, which indicates significant educational experience. 18.84 of those years specifically devoted to language teaching. This means that they were experts in the instructional aspects related to teaching written composition. Only 12.4% had a bachelor's degree in philology or education and the remainder had a teaching degree in another specialist area. None of them had one in special

The sample of students was selected in a similar fashion to the selection of the teachers. They were chosen following several strict criteria with the purpose of being able to match

The first criterion was that the students selected receive classes from the teachers in the sample. This criterion was applied with the concurrent selection of the teachers, that is to say, the students and professors were selected simultaneously. The study was carried out independently by people different from those in the research Team on Excellence in Psycho-Educational Intervention in Developmental and Learning Difficulties directed by second author. This was done as if they were independent studies; with the aim of ensuring there was no interference in the results. This ensured the teacher's knowledge of the research objectives did not interfere, and there would be no bias resulting from the knowledge of the

The second criterion was to include students from the three categories, that is to say, students with LD, students without LD and/or students with ADHD. The latter group was recruited from the Association of Parents of People with ADHD in the province of Leon (ALENHI, Leon Association of People with Attention Deficit Disorder with and without Hyperactivity). In addition, discrepancies between achievement and IQ of the students with writing LD were found in the intelligence measures, but that was not the case for students

without LD or with ADHD, which was relevant to the selection of the samples.

education and the first three years of primary education.

the sample with the needs and goals of this research project.

**The teaching staff** 

with and without ADHD.

the teaching career.

true object of this study.

education. **The students**  The third criterion required the sample to be representative of the spectrum of the educational levels for the teachers studied. The aim was to relate the achievement in written composition to the data collected from the sample of teachers. However, before the third year of Primary Education there is a limited production or level of written composition. This study addressed from the third year of Primary Education on. That is to say, we only included students of second (third and fourth years) and third cycle (fifth and sixth year) of Primary Education in the sample.

After applying the three criteria, a sample of 111 students of 3rd to 6th year of Primary Education was extracted (78 males and 33 females). Of these, 35 students had LD, 36 did not present LD and 40 had ADHD. Their ages ranged from 9 to 12 years. The average of age of the sample of the second cycle was 10 years old and the average of age of the third cycle was 11 years old. (For more details see Table 1).


Table 1. Distribution of the sample of students by type, gender, age and cycle of Primary Education.

#### **Instruments**

The instruments employed were concerned with measuring the teachers' variables, that is to say, with the role of practice in the teaching of the written composition, and with the measures of the students' variables.

The Quality of Teaching Determines Students' Achievement in Writing 181

Aspects Evaluated Instrument Tasks Parameters

The instruments used to measure the student variables were of two types. Firstly, we used measures to monitor the level of students' general achievement and their level of intelligence and, secondly, instruments to measure specific achievement in written

In order to measure intelligence, we used the Cattell assessment, with the purpose of selecting the suitable participants and, in particular, to establish the aptitude achievement discrepancy criterion (LD) or no discrepancy (under achievement), as well as to observe whether students had intellectual limitations (whether they had LD or ADHD or not). In addition, measures of general achievement were obtained through scale (from 1 to 4) and appreciation instruments filled out by the teachers regarding each of the students. For this type of instruments, several protocols were developed that covered all education levels (Infant Education, Primary Education, and Compulsory Secondary Education). These instruments were constructed specifically by the research team based on the guidelines of the Curricular Designs Base, the Ministerial Decrees and the Council of Education of the Region of Castile and Leon. They were elaborated through meticulous analysis, and were adapted to the objectives of the research team. This analysis was carried out with the goal of

teachers evaluating the students' general achievement in language and mathematics.

The purpose of the application of these appreciation scales was to obtain an approximate measure. Although they were based on the teachers' opinion and therefore were subjective measurements, they do come from an expert on the student whom they teach. It fundamentally concerns the students' general achievement in language and mathematics, to be able to compare it with her/his level of intelligence, measured by the Cattell assessment, and to be able to state whether there is a discrepancy between aptitude or capacity and

PRAESPAE Likert type

Questionnaire Rating

Questionnaire Rating

Questionnaire Rating

Questionnaire Rating

The role of practice PRAES Four Questionnaires Rating

teaching of writing PRAESPO Likert type

Theoretical Approach (natural vs. formal) PRAESPE Likert type

Classroom Activities PRAESPA Likert type

Table 2. Aspects evaluated in teachers and instruments used in research

Opinions about the factors that affect the

Teachers' self-efficacy regarding the teaching of writing (personal and

general)

**Student evaluation** 

composition.

**General measures** 

achievement (see Table 3).

#### **Evaluation of the teaching staff**

The development of the instrument which is the object of this study began by first reviewing the Academic Search Elite databases, which are available at the Central Library of the University of León. Moreover, it was essential to study and review the legislation, educational programs and guides that establish the syllabi for both infant and primary education. This permitted the collection of information about the evaluation criteria in the area of Spanish language in each of the educational stages studied, and in particular the empirical data related to the focus of this research study.

These theoretical bases allowed the researchers to proceed to the collection, translation and, where appropriate, modification of the instruments used, as well as developing new tools to assess the areas and components that affect teachers' practice in the teaching of writing. Once created, they were subjected to validation (reliability, validity, norms, etc.) by the research team.

In this way, we obtained the instrument that evaluates the Role of Teachers Practice in Writing (PRAES), together with its corresponding questionnaires: the first focuses on opinion (PRAESPO), the second on the theoretical approach (PRAESPE) and the third refers to the classroom activity - what teachers actually do (PRAESPA) – and, finally, the focus of the last questionnaire was on self-efficiency (PRAESAE) (Pacheco et al., 2007).

#### **Overview of the psychological meanings assessed**

The PRAES is shaped both by the identity of the teacher, and by the four sections or questionnaires related to the components and factors that affect practice. (For details, see Table 2). The names of each questionnaire, presented in the order in which they are used in the PRAES protocol are as follows:



Table 2. Aspects evaluated in teachers and instruments used in research

#### **Student evaluation**

180 Learning Disabilities

The development of the instrument which is the object of this study began by first reviewing the Academic Search Elite databases, which are available at the Central Library of the University of León. Moreover, it was essential to study and review the legislation, educational programs and guides that establish the syllabi for both infant and primary education. This permitted the collection of information about the evaluation criteria in the area of Spanish language in each of the educational stages studied, and in particular the

These theoretical bases allowed the researchers to proceed to the collection, translation and, where appropriate, modification of the instruments used, as well as developing new tools to assess the areas and components that affect teachers' practice in the teaching of writing. Once created, they were subjected to validation (reliability, validity, norms, etc.) by the

In this way, we obtained the instrument that evaluates the Role of Teachers Practice in Writing (PRAES), together with its corresponding questionnaires: the first focuses on opinion (PRAESPO), the second on the theoretical approach (PRAESPE) and the third refers to the classroom activity - what teachers actually do (PRAESPA) – and, finally, the focus of

The PRAES is shaped both by the identity of the teacher, and by the four sections or questionnaires related to the components and factors that affect practice. (For details, see Table 2). The names of each questionnaire, presented in the order in which they are used in

1. Practice-Opinion (PRAESPO), refers to the teachers' views regarding the role of the teacher in their teaching writing practice. It considers the following components and indicators: (i) The personal student component (motivation, planning and review), (ii) the practice component, (iii) the family component and (iv) teachers' training. This

2. The Practice Approach Questionnaire (PRAESPE) evaluates teachers' theoretical orientation in relation to the formal and the natural learning process of writing. This instrument was adapted from the Writing Orientation Scale (Graham et al., 2001). 3. The Classroom Practice Questionnaire (PRAESPA) measures the skills, instructional procedures, activities and materials used by teachers when teaching writing, and the type of text or the actual texts they use. This instrument was partially developed by the team and partly adapted and translated from Graham et al., (2001), based on his

4. The Teacher Writing Practices Scale Practice (PRAESAE) helps to better understand the type of factors that create both personal and general difficulties for teachers in their teaching, thus determining their self beliefs in the process of teaching writing. This instrument differentiates between self-efficacy and general efficacy. It was developed by the research team, based on the Teacher Efficacy Scale for Writing, adapted according to the directives and guidelines for constructing self-efficacy scales (Graham

the last questionnaire was on self-efficiency (PRAESAE) (Pacheco et al., 2007).

**Evaluation of the teaching staff** 

research team.

empirical data related to the focus of this research study.

**Overview of the psychological meanings assessed** 

questionnaire was prepared by the research team.

the PRAES protocol are as follows:

Teacher Writing Practices Scale.

et al., 2001; Bandura, 2005).

The instruments used to measure the student variables were of two types. Firstly, we used measures to monitor the level of students' general achievement and their level of intelligence and, secondly, instruments to measure specific achievement in written composition.

#### **General measures**

In order to measure intelligence, we used the Cattell assessment, with the purpose of selecting the suitable participants and, in particular, to establish the aptitude achievement discrepancy criterion (LD) or no discrepancy (under achievement), as well as to observe whether students had intellectual limitations (whether they had LD or ADHD or not). In addition, measures of general achievement were obtained through scale (from 1 to 4) and appreciation instruments filled out by the teachers regarding each of the students. For this type of instruments, several protocols were developed that covered all education levels (Infant Education, Primary Education, and Compulsory Secondary Education). These instruments were constructed specifically by the research team based on the guidelines of the Curricular Designs Base, the Ministerial Decrees and the Council of Education of the Region of Castile and Leon. They were elaborated through meticulous analysis, and were adapted to the objectives of the research team. This analysis was carried out with the goal of teachers evaluating the students' general achievement in language and mathematics.

The purpose of the application of these appreciation scales was to obtain an approximate measure. Although they were based on the teachers' opinion and therefore were subjective measurements, they do come from an expert on the student whom they teach. It fundamentally concerns the students' general achievement in language and mathematics, to be able to compare it with her/his level of intelligence, measured by the Cattell assessment, and to be able to state whether there is a discrepancy between aptitude or capacity and achievement (see Table 3).

The Quality of Teaching Determines Students' Achievement in Writing 183

The second task consisted of several texts of comparison-contrasts, where reader and textbased measures were taken. The parameters obtained from these tasks, were those that were used to relate the students' achievement in written composition to the role of the teachers'

The text-based measures evaluate information generation or productivity and the organization of the information, or the coherence and structuring of the information. For example, in the case of information generation, aspects such as the title, the number of paragraphs, the number of textual units, the number of verbs in personal form, the number of content words and, functional words and determiners are tallied. As for the organization of the information, objective elements relative to referential coherence (indicating referential and lexical coherence) and to the relational coherence (meta-structural and discursive indicators) were measured, as well as "other measures of coherence". As regards the aspects related to the structuring of the information, objective measures concerning the textual typology were used (comparison-contrasts) were measured as well as the number of punctuation marks (commas, periods, question marks, inverted commas, vignettes, etc.).

These concern a qualitative evaluation or judgment considering the specific criteria for the comparison-contrast type text. It involves making a global evaluation, as far as structure,

> Number of paragraphs Number of sentences Number of verbs

Number of words (determinants, content, functional, and

Number of cohesive ties: anaphoric, lexical, meta, structural, connective, argumentative, reformulative Referential consistency: anaphoric and lexical ties Relational consistency: metastructural, connective,

Total consistency: relational and referential coherence Density of consistency: number of ties for every 100 words

argumentative and reformulative ties

Structure Number of main parts of a text, introduction, main body

coherence and quality are concerned, as indicated in detail in Table 4.

totals)

and conclusion

Table 4. Aspects used to evaluate the text produced (translated Garcia & Fidalgo, 2006, pp.

Appearance Parameters

Structure Rating (1-4) Consistency Rating (1-4) Quality Rating (1-6)

practices in the teaching of writing.

**Text-based measures** 

**Reader-based measures** 

Evaluated

Productivity

Consistency

Type of measures

Text Based

Reader based

185)


Table 3. Aspects evaluated and instruments used in research on the students.

#### **Specific measures**

We measured specific achievement in written composition through two types of tasks. The first task entailed writing a free format text that served to establish the students' level of writing. It also helped establish whether there was a discrepancy between aptitude and achievement in writing, using the scales developed by the research team (García, 2001; García and Marbán, 2003). The scales corresponded with "the other measures of coherence" (relevance, connectors, paragraphs and argument thread) and, with several parameter measures (content and, functional words and determiners) that were previously applied by García and Marbán (2003). The measures of productivity and coherence were obtained from the written compositions of the participants in the planning tasks. Productivity is the amount of text developed by a student in each of the tasks. This productivity was verified by analyzing the words in the content, functional and determining words' parameters. A text is considered coherent when it presents information in an organized way, so that different receivers can perceive it as a unit. The coherence of the text was measured by means of relevance indicators to demonstrate theme continuity, and observe the ability to connect the ideas to construct proposals, to construct well-delimited paragraphs, to organize the sequence of these paragraphs to establish the thread of the argument throughout the text. When it was a narrative, the coherence analysis was carried out by means of a structure analysis, adjusted to include the indicators of a framework (time, space and characters) and of episode (initial event, response execution and consequence). In addition, for the tasks entailing converting matrices into propositions, the total scores of integration of the information were obtained (García and Marbán, 2003).

The second task consisted of several texts of comparison-contrasts, where reader and textbased measures were taken. The parameters obtained from these tasks, were those that were used to relate the students' achievement in written composition to the role of the teachers' practices in the teaching of writing.

#### **Text-based measures**

182 Learning Disabilities

Aspects Instruments Tasks Parameters

Intelligence IC Cattell Four intelligence subtests Total score, CI total

Questionnaire /Appreciative Scale of performance in language and math

comparison-contrast

comparison-contrast

comparison-contrast

We measured specific achievement in written composition through two types of tasks. The first task entailed writing a free format text that served to establish the students' level of writing. It also helped establish whether there was a discrepancy between aptitude and achievement in writing, using the scales developed by the research team (García, 2001; García and Marbán, 2003). The scales corresponded with "the other measures of coherence" (relevance, connectors, paragraphs and argument thread) and, with several parameter measures (content and, functional words and determiners) that were previously applied by García and Marbán (2003). The measures of productivity and coherence were obtained from the written compositions of the participants in the planning tasks. Productivity is the amount of text developed by a student in each of the tasks. This productivity was verified by analyzing the words in the content, functional and determining words' parameters. A text is considered coherent when it presents information in an organized way, so that different receivers can perceive it as a unit. The coherence of the text was measured by means of relevance indicators to demonstrate theme continuity, and observe the ability to connect the ideas to construct proposals, to construct well-delimited paragraphs, to organize the sequence of these paragraphs to establish the thread of the argument throughout the text. When it was a narrative, the coherence analysis was carried out by means of a structure analysis, adjusted to include the indicators of a framework (time, space and characters) and of episode (initial event, response execution and consequence). In addition, for the tasks entailing converting matrices into propositions, the total scores of integration of the

Editorial writing Indicators

and Centil

Ratings and qualitative observations

Objective and subjective indicators

Objective and subjective indicators

Objective and subjective indicators

Students: General measures

Students: Specific Measures

Writing Product Editorial Writing Editorial writing and

Measures Editorial Writing Editorial writing and

Measures Editorial Writing Editorial writing and

Table 3. Aspects evaluated and instruments used in research on the students.

EPPyFPE (García, Marbán, & de Caso,

information were obtained (García and Marbán, 2003).

Teacher Rating

Scales

2001)

Evaluated

Overall Student Performance

Text-based

Reader-based

Productivity and consistency

**Specific measures** 

Overall

The text-based measures evaluate information generation or productivity and the organization of the information, or the coherence and structuring of the information. For example, in the case of information generation, aspects such as the title, the number of paragraphs, the number of textual units, the number of verbs in personal form, the number of content words and, functional words and determiners are tallied. As for the organization of the information, objective elements relative to referential coherence (indicating referential and lexical coherence) and to the relational coherence (meta-structural and discursive indicators) were measured, as well as "other measures of coherence". As regards the aspects related to the structuring of the information, objective measures concerning the textual typology were used (comparison-contrasts) were measured as well as the number of punctuation marks (commas, periods, question marks, inverted commas, vignettes, etc.).

#### **Reader-based measures**

These concern a qualitative evaluation or judgment considering the specific criteria for the comparison-contrast type text. It involves making a global evaluation, as far as structure, coherence and quality are concerned, as indicated in detail in Table 4.


Table 4. Aspects used to evaluate the text produced (translated Garcia & Fidalgo, 2006, pp. 185)

The Quality of Teaching Determines Students' Achievement in Writing 185

carried out after eliminating the data concerning the students' identity, their typology, age, school, and gender, etc. Therefore, the evaluators were blind to the origin, level, etc. of students. In addition, corrections were systematically balanced to ensure that all the correctors marked texts belonging the three student categories and from all participants levels of education. The data from the corrections of the general measures and of the specific measures of the written composition, along with the data provided by teachers, were codified and computerized in Excel matrices by the team members. These Excel matrices were then integrated into a single SPSS matrix by the research director who also carried out the different statistical analyses (univariate and multivariate analysis) and the interpretation of the results.

After the creation of a single matrix on SPSS (v. 13.0) with the variables generated for the data regarding teachers and students, the following types of analysis were carried out: multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAS) using the SPSS Model Lineal General

The multivariate contrasts in the student based measures based on their typology (ADHD, LD versus without LD), indicate highly significant statistically results with a large size effect

For the execution of these multivariate analyses of the three student typologies (ADHD, with and without LD) and, as dependent variables, the different measures obtained for the students and the teachers were taken as intersubject factors. The purpose of this was to highlight the differences between the teachers as regards the role of practice in the teaching of writing. We also sought to show the differences according to student typology and to try to extract some pattern to help understand the relationship between the teachers' writing

The tests concerning the intersubject/intergroup effects also indicated statistically significant results in most of the dependent variables related to students and to teachers. The size effects, in general, were large. When the grouping variable (intersubject factor or fixed factor) belonging to a specific group was taken (with ADHD, with and without LD), statistically significant differences were observed, both in the writing tasks and in comparison–contrast texts. In the comparison-contrast texts significant differences were observed for the variables of information generation, organization of ideas, structure, reader-based quality measures, etc. For example, for organization of ideas in relational coherence (p = .001; ŋ ² =.217); or for reader-based measurement as concerns structure (p= .001; ŋ ² =.213); and for reader-based evaluation (order-quality) (p = .001; ŋ ² =.284). Also, in the writing task, statistically significant differences were observed for idea generation and total productivity (p = .001; ŋ ² =.268); in the reader based evaluation (order and structure)

As concerns what teachers actually did (see Table 5), it was interesting to observe that it differed according to the students taught, in motivation (close to statistical significance), in natural teaching approach, and in self-efficacy (very close to statistical significance). The tests of the intersubject effects indicated statistical significance for the opinion variables,

module (MLG) and multiple linear regression analyses (ARL).

**3. Results** 

**General Linear model** 

[F (84, 28) = 3.52; p = .001; ŋ ² = .914].

teaching practice and the students' achievement.

(p = .001; ŋ ² =.486); and in quality (p = .001; ŋ ² =.383).

## **Procedure**

The study presented here, which is a descriptive study, consisted of two comparative and related samples, chosen simultaneously from 30 schools. The samples were selected to complement each other. In fact, the research team was carrying out a series of studies in the province of León which required samples of students from three different categories which are matched for general characteristics: a group of students with LD, another group without LD and a group of students with ADHD.

The sample of the teachers was selected on the basis of the criterion explained above. They were teachers who were responsible for students with and without learning difficulties and/or low achievement in infant and early primary education. The next step was the fieldwork itself. It consisted, firstly, of establishing telephone contact with the school principals to obtain permission to visit and carry out the protocol with the language teachers of the selected school years in each of these schools. Two researchers then visited the schools on the agreed dates and times and asked teachers to complete the protocols. The sample selection was performed directly by the two researchers and not by other means, to ensure the reliability and validity of the instruments in the collection of information. Data collection was conducted over a period of five months.

The procedure followed for the data collection from students can be summarized in the following steps. Firstly, general measures of sample selection were applied. Different members of the research team, with an approximate duration of 10 to 20 minutes, carried out an IQ measurement using the Cattell assessment in small groups. After the Cattell assessment, students were asked to carry out different written composition tasks. Small groups of students carried out individual free text exercises (García, Marbán, and de Caso, 2001), to determine their level of achievement in writing. Several comparison-contrast texts were written to obtain the indicators and the measures of the product of the writing (text and reader-based measures). These measures were used to relate the students' achievement in writing to the role of the teachers' practice, which constitutes the object of this study. Our basis for this sample came from an initial sample of more than 350 students from previous studies carried out by the research team, of which only 111 students were selected for this study. Simultaneously, the teachers were asked to complete evaluation scales regarding the each student's general achievement . This task took some time and once finished the forms were collected.

Along with the application of these instruments and tasks, a further set of tests and questionnaires were applied. These were related to attention, working memory, and the study of the online processes used in written composition. They were measured by means of a writing log, but they are not included in this study, as they are part of an overarching project including different studies with broader goals than those presented in this article. Once all the assessments were carried out in the 30 schools, the members of the research team analyzed all the texts. Members of the team, who had received specific training over several meetings, including the study of the correction dossier and the systematic supervision of the written texts, carried out their meticulous correction. The texts were corrected twice and anonymously with the purpose of reaching an agreement between coders. The approximate time dedicated to the correction of texts for each student was of two hours, including the codification and computerization of the data. The correction was carried out after eliminating the data concerning the students' identity, their typology, age, school, and gender, etc. Therefore, the evaluators were blind to the origin, level, etc. of students. In addition, corrections were systematically balanced to ensure that all the correctors marked texts belonging the three student categories and from all participants levels of education. The data from the corrections of the general measures and of the specific measures of the written composition, along with the data provided by teachers, were codified and computerized in Excel matrices by the team members. These Excel matrices were then integrated into a single SPSS matrix by the research director who also carried out the different statistical analyses (univariate and multivariate analysis) and the interpretation of the results.
