**3.1 Effects of interventions on written composition performance**

We first present the results relating to products written on the cognitive processes activated in the drafting of the texts.

#### **Product Measures**

Multivariate contrasts of variance showed statistically significant results and a large size effect for all measures based on the text and the reader, as shown in Table 6.

Between-effects tests show statistically significant differences in text-based indicators of productivity [F (3, 108) = 7.169, p <.001, η2 = .166], referential coherence [F (3, 108) = 11.241, p<.001, η2= .238], relational coherence [F (3, 108) = 24.245, p <.001, η2 = .402], overall consistency [F(3, 108) = 18 506 , p <.001, η2 = .340], other measures of consistency [F (3, 108) = 11.927, p <.001, η2 = .249] and overall structure [F (3, 108) = 38 367, p <.001, η2 = .516], as well as structure [F (3, 108) = 40.055, p <.001, η2 = .527], consistency [F (3, 108 )=14701, p <.001, η2 = .290], quality reader-based indicators [F (3, 108) = 11.606, p <.001, η2 = .244] and the resulting total [F(3, 108) = 22.842, p <.001, η2 = .388] in all cases, with a large size effect.

Post-hoc analyses have shown statistically significant changes across groups following the implementation of different instructional methods. The data is shown in the Table 7.

This analysis shows a significant improvement in all text-based measures and in the reader of the groups who developed the specific interventions for the EFP and PRO groups, compared to CO and PAD groups.

Three months after the implementation of the various forms of intervention, we detected that in groups where actual instruction had taken place there was a partial maintenance of the gains resulting from the interventions. In these cases, as in the case of text-based measures, although there were significant decreases between the post-test and follow-up in overall coherence and other consistency items, there was significant improvement vis-à-vis the initial situation (pretest). Regarding structure, the gains following the implementation of the different interventions were almost entirely maintained within the three months following the intervention. As for reader-based measures, we detected maintenance and even further development compared to the post-test.

The application of learning to other types of text was also corroborated. In this case, we saw a considerable improvement in the follow-up compared to the pretest (p = <.001) in the EFP and PRO groups, compared to the PAD group in the *other coherence* text-based measures (pretest comparison-contrast: MPRO = 1.2, MEFP = 0.9 and MPAD = 1.2; coherent storyline: MPRO = 2.2, MEFP = 2.8 and MPAD = 1.1) and *structure* (pretest: MPRO = 1.1, MEFP = 1.1 and MPAD = 1.3;

Table 6. Results of repeated factorial measures designed 4 x 2, measures of written product

118 Learning Disabilities

First, we conducted an analysis of variance with repeat measures of 4 x 2 taking the repeated measure time (pre/post-test) as inter-subjects factor and the experimental group students

Second, we conducted an analysis of the measures repeated 3 X 3. We considered the group as intersubject factor (PRO, EFP and PAD, as the CO group was not evaluated after three months due to lack of availability) and as intra-subject factor the repeated pretest, posttest

We first present the results relating to products written on the cognitive processes activated

Multivariate contrasts of variance showed statistically significant results and a large size

Between-effects tests show statistically significant differences in text-based indicators of productivity [F (3, 108) = 7.169, p <.001, η2 = .166], referential coherence [F (3, 108) = 11.241, p<.001, η2= .238], relational coherence [F (3, 108) = 24.245, p <.001, η2 = .402], overall consistency [F(3, 108) = 18 506 , p <.001, η2 = .340], other measures of consistency [F (3, 108) = 11.927, p <.001, η2 = .249] and overall structure [F (3, 108) = 38 367, p <.001, η2 = .516], as well as structure [F (3, 108) = 40.055, p <.001, η2 = .527], consistency [F (3, 108 )=14701, p <.001, η2 = .290], quality reader-based indicators [F (3, 108) = 11.606, p <.001, η2 = .244] and the resulting total

Post-hoc analyses have shown statistically significant changes across groups following the

This analysis shows a significant improvement in all text-based measures and in the reader of the groups who developed the specific interventions for the EFP and PRO groups,

Three months after the implementation of the various forms of intervention, we detected that in groups where actual instruction had taken place there was a partial maintenance of the gains resulting from the interventions. In these cases, as in the case of text-based measures, although there were significant decreases between the post-test and follow-up in overall coherence and other consistency items, there was significant improvement vis-à-vis the initial situation (pretest). Regarding structure, the gains following the implementation of the different interventions were almost entirely maintained within the three months following the intervention. As for reader-based measures, we detected maintenance and

The application of learning to other types of text was also corroborated. In this case, we saw a considerable improvement in the follow-up compared to the pretest (p = <.001) in the EFP and PRO groups, compared to the PAD group in the *other coherence* text-based measures (pretest comparison-contrast: MPRO = 1.2, MEFP = 0.9 and MPAD = 1.2; coherent storyline: MPRO = 2.2, MEFP = 2.8 and MPAD = 1.1) and *structure* (pretest: MPRO = 1.1, MEFP = 1.1 and MPAD = 1.3;

implementation of different instructional methods. The data is shown in the Table 7.

belonged to (EFP, PRO, PAD, CO) as inter-factor.

**3.1 Effects of interventions on written composition performance** 

effect for all measures based on the text and the reader, as shown in Table 6.

[F(3, 108) = 22.842, p <.001, η2 = .388] in all cases, with a large size effect.

and follow-up measures.

in the drafting of the texts.

compared to CO and PAD groups.

even further development compared to the post-test.

**Product Measures** 

Preventing Children's Writing Difficulties Through Specific Intervention in the Home 121

respectively. However, the pre/post differences in interaction with the intervention in the trial of inter-subject effects was not statistically significant for mechanical [*F* (3, 108) = 1.479, *p* = .224, η2 *=* .039] nor fundamental indicators [*F* (3, 108) = 2.330, *p* = .078, η2 *=* .061] so we chose to individually analyze some items of interest. In this case, significant differences were found in item number 11 - organization of ideas into paragraphs [*F* (3, 108) = 6.277, *p* = .001, η2*=*.148]. The inter-subject effects test confirmed this [*F* (3, 108) = 4.329, *p* = .006, η2 *=* .107] and the post-hoc indicated that the only differences were between the CO and the EFP (p=.032), PAD (p = .043) and PRO (p = .035) groups. These groups somewhat improved their writing practices in all measures (pretest, Mco = 60.1, MEFP = 62.4, MPAD = 70.7 y MPRO = 67.4;

Three months after completion of the intervention, in general there have not been

This time we designed 2x2 repeated measures because only PAD and EFP students completed this scale. Thus, the intra-subject factor considered as the repeated measure was the pre/post-test and the inter-subject factor was the experimental group students belonged to.

Multivariate contrasts showed no statistically significant results for any of the FAOP-PRAES variables. They did, however, for three IM FAOP - Total: home involvement [*F* (1.47)=4.529, *p* = .039, η2 = .088], school involvement [*F* (1.47) = 4.529, *p* = .039, η2 = .088] and total

The intersubject effects tests show statistically significant differences in indicators of home involvement [*F* (1.47) = 3.985, *p* = .052, η2 = .078], in school [*F* (1.47) = 8.427*, p* = .006, η2=.152] and [*F* (1.47) = 6.405, *p* = .015, η2 = .120], with medium/large size effects. Such group

Home School Total

Fig. 1. Differences in FAOP-IM measures between groups at the time of evaluation

EFP PAD EFP PAD

Pretest Post-test

statistically significant changes in any of the motivational-emotional elements.

post-test, Mco = 47.7, MEFP = 84.1, MPAD = 74.7 y MPRO = 76.03).

**3.2.1 Family opinions: Implication and writing practice** 

involvement [ *F* (1,47) = 8.720, *p* = .005, η2 = .156].

differences favor the EFP group, as evidenced in Figure 1.


flow of argument: MPRO = 2.3, MEFP = 2.8 and MPAD = 1.5) and in all the reader-based measures including the total (pretest comparison-contrast: MPRO = 4.2, MEFP=.4 and MPAD = 3.8; flow of argument: MPRO = 6.7, MEFP = 8.7 and MPAD = 3.2).

Table 7. Post-hoc contrasts in the textual product measures

#### **Process measures**

Following the process measures, multivariate contrasts and inter-subject effects tests show statistically significant differences in overall task frequency [*F*(3, 108) = 3.409, *p* = .020, η2=.087], frequency of making an outline or draft [*F*(3, 108) = 4.250, *p* = .007, η2 = .106] and percentage of time thinking about ideas [*F*(3, 108) = 4141*, p* = .008, η2 = .103 ].

The post-hoc analysis showed a significant improvement in the groups that received explicit instruction in writing processes (EFP y PRO) compared to the CO and PAD. Thus, the EFP group increased the total task frequency compared to CO (p = .022; pretest: MEFP = 15.7 and MCO = 19.7; post-test: MEFP = 25.8 and MCO = 14.2) and in time preparing a draft (pretest: MEFP= 0.07 and MCO = 2.1; post-test: MEFP = 5.5 and MCO = 0.3). This general increase in the time spent drafting was also significant among the PRO and CO groups (p=.032; pretest: MPRO = 0 and MCO = 2.1; post-test: MPRO = 6.3 and MCO = 0.3).

#### **3.2 Effects of interventions on the motivational and contextual elements**

Regarding attitudes, multivariate contrasts do not show statistically significant results.

When looking at attributions, on the other hand, the results were statistically significant regarding time-intervention interaction in the failure-effort attributional pattern [*F* (3, 108)=3.545, p = .017; *η2 =* .090]. The inter-subject effects test was also statistically significant [*F* (3, 108) = 2.800, *p* =.044, η2 *=* .073] and post-hoc contrasts showed differences very close to statistical significance between EFP and PAD groups (p = .059), both showing a decrease from pretest to post-test (pretest, MEFP= 11.40 vs. MPAD= 9.04; post-test, MEFP = 9.96 vs. MPAD=. 80).

As for self-efficacy, multivariate contrasts show statistically significant results in the timetreatment interaction in both areas – mechanical [*F* (3, 108) = 3.453, *p* = .019, η2 *=* .088] and fundamental [*F* (3, 108) = 6.560, *p* = <.001, η2 *=* .154] - with medium and large size effects,

flow of argument: MPRO = 2.3, MEFP = 2.8 and MPAD = 1.5) and in all the reader-based measures including the total (pretest comparison-contrast: MPRO = 4.2, MEFP=.4 and MPAD =

*Variables EFP vs. PRO EFP vs. CO EFP vs. PAD PRO vs. CO PRO vs. PAD PAD vs. CO* 

Productivity n.s. .008 .028 .009 .035 n.s. C. Referential n.s. .001 .017 <.001 .003 n.s. C. Relational n.s. <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 n.s. C. total n.s. <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 n.s. Others C. n.s. <.001 .017 <.001 .022 n.s. Structure n.s. <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 n.s.

Structure n.s. <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 n.s. Coherence n.s. <.001 <.001 <.001 .003 n.s. Quality n.s. .024 .018 <.001 <.001 n.s. Total n.s. <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 n.s.

Following the process measures, multivariate contrasts and inter-subject effects tests show statistically significant differences in overall task frequency [*F*(3, 108) = 3.409, *p* = .020, η2=.087], frequency of making an outline or draft [*F*(3, 108) = 4.250, *p* = .007, η2 = .106] and percentage of

The post-hoc analysis showed a significant improvement in the groups that received explicit instruction in writing processes (EFP y PRO) compared to the CO and PAD. Thus, the EFP group increased the total task frequency compared to CO (p = .022; pretest: MEFP = 15.7 and MCO = 19.7; post-test: MEFP = 25.8 and MCO = 14.2) and in time preparing a draft (pretest: MEFP= 0.07 and MCO = 2.1; post-test: MEFP = 5.5 and MCO = 0.3). This general increase in the time spent drafting was also significant among the PRO and CO groups (p=.032; pretest:

3.8; flow of argument: MPRO = 6.7, MEFP = 8.7 and MPAD = 3.2).

Table 7. Post-hoc contrasts in the textual product measures

time thinking about ideas [*F*(3, 108) = 4141*, p* = .008, η2 = .103 ].

MPRO = 0 and MCO = 2.1; post-test: MPRO = 6.3 and MCO = 0.3).

**3.2 Effects of interventions on the motivational and contextual elements** 

Regarding attitudes, multivariate contrasts do not show statistically significant results.

When looking at attributions, on the other hand, the results were statistically significant regarding time-intervention interaction in the failure-effort attributional pattern [*F* (3, 108)=3.545, p = .017; *η2 =* .090]. The inter-subject effects test was also statistically significant [*F* (3, 108) = 2.800, *p* =.044, η2 *=* .073] and post-hoc contrasts showed differences very close to statistical significance between EFP and PAD groups (p = .059), both showing a decrease from pretest to post-test (pretest, MEFP= 11.40 vs. MPAD= 9.04; post-test, MEFP = 9.96 vs.

As for self-efficacy, multivariate contrasts show statistically significant results in the timetreatment interaction in both areas – mechanical [*F* (3, 108) = 3.453, *p* = .019, η2 *=* .088] and fundamental [*F* (3, 108) = 6.560, *p* = <.001, η2 *=* .154] - with medium and large size effects,

*Text-based measures* 

*Reader-based measures* 

**Process measures** 

MPAD=. 80).

respectively. However, the pre/post differences in interaction with the intervention in the trial of inter-subject effects was not statistically significant for mechanical [*F* (3, 108) = 1.479, *p* = .224, η2 *=* .039] nor fundamental indicators [*F* (3, 108) = 2.330, *p* = .078, η2 *=* .061] so we chose to individually analyze some items of interest. In this case, significant differences were found in item number 11 - organization of ideas into paragraphs [*F* (3, 108) = 6.277, *p* = .001, η2*=*.148]. The inter-subject effects test confirmed this [*F* (3, 108) = 4.329, *p* = .006, η2 *=* .107] and the post-hoc indicated that the only differences were between the CO and the EFP (p=.032), PAD (p = .043) and PRO (p = .035) groups. These groups somewhat improved their writing practices in all measures (pretest, Mco = 60.1, MEFP = 62.4, MPAD = 70.7 y MPRO = 67.4; post-test, Mco = 47.7, MEFP = 84.1, MPAD = 74.7 y MPRO = 76.03).

Three months after completion of the intervention, in general there have not been statistically significant changes in any of the motivational-emotional elements.

#### **3.2.1 Family opinions: Implication and writing practice**

This time we designed 2x2 repeated measures because only PAD and EFP students completed this scale. Thus, the intra-subject factor considered as the repeated measure was the pre/post-test and the inter-subject factor was the experimental group students belonged to.

Multivariate contrasts showed no statistically significant results for any of the FAOP-PRAES variables. They did, however, for three IM FAOP - Total: home involvement [*F* (1.47)=4.529, *p* = .039, η2 = .088], school involvement [*F* (1.47) = 4.529, *p* = .039, η2 = .088] and total involvement [ *F* (1,47) = 8.720, *p* = .005, η2 = .156].

The intersubject effects tests show statistically significant differences in indicators of home involvement [*F* (1.47) = 3.985, *p* = .052, η2 = .078], in school [*F* (1.47) = 8.427*, p* = .006, η2=.152] and [*F* (1.47) = 6.405, *p* = .015, η2 = .120], with medium/large size effects. Such group differences favor the EFP group, as evidenced in Figure 1.

Fig. 1. Differences in FAOP-IM measures between groups at the time of evaluation

Preventing Children's Writing Difficulties Through Specific Intervention in the Home 123

as the few previous localized empirical studies in this area had shown, although these mostly focused on initial stimulation or in recovering less complex elements from long-term memory (Axford, 2007; Feiler, 2003; Saint Lauren & Giasson, 2005) and did not systematically

This intervention program, which addressed the cognitive aspect specifically, we can confirm encouraged in both groups of students subjected to systematic instruction (EFP and PRO) the efficient activation of the psychological processes involved in written composition and was conducive to greater efficiency in this task, although it had a greater impact on the planning process specifically. This again confirms the potential for parents, not only to promote ways of helping their children improve their textual production, but also for advising them on the use of cognitive strategies that enable them to effectively activate the

In terms of motivational elements, we have to acknowledge that the program did not produce statistically significant changes in attitudes toward writing in any context, nor has it stimulated more adaptive attributional patterns. However, in the latter case, both peer groups (EFP and PRO) show a positive trend apparent in the increase of attributions to internal factors (effort) and the decrease in external factors (luck). This is possibly due to the stability of these personality constructs and the resulting difficulty in modifying them in a few sessions. The difficulty of optimizing them has been found in specific interventions aimed at motivation for writing (Garcia & de Caso, 2006). Moreover, with respect to efficacy, although there was an increase in the EFP and PRO groups compared with the PAD and CO groups, neither reached statistical significance. Perhaps this result is a consequence of the evolutionary trend that the development of self-efficacy follows, which is exemplified by the overestimation of students' writing ability in the initial stages of education, such as Primary

Thirdly, as to whether increasing parental involvement in homework is sufficient to improve children's outcomes or whether prior training is required to enable them to do so, the results conclude that training contributes to a significantly higher level of success than just natural collaboration, as evidenced by the comparison of the EFP and PAD groups.

As for the parent training program, it has proven very effective and has managed to prepare parents to enhance the development of their children's written composition, not only by participating as role models or providing materials and resources, but also specifically instructing them in the higher-order cognitive processes that make up that skill through the

Despite the limitations of this study we can confirm its positive results. The limitations are mainly related to low family involvement and high parents and teacher motivation to engage in instruction, which might account for the degree of positive effect of the program in encouraging the review process or stimulating motivational elements. Thus, the effectiveness of the intervention program to enhance improvements in students' written products in the third cycle of Primary education, its stability and application to other forms of writing, as well as to encourage the activation of the mental processes responsible for efficient text processing, especially in regard to planning, are all confirmed. Similarly, we conclude that the family context, and parents in particular, perfectly complement the teaching of writing. Their potential to stimulate their children's writing competence through

address higher-order processes in older children, which was the focus of our work.

higher cognitive processes involved in writing.

(Pajares, Valiente, & Cheong, 2006 ).

use of homework.

#### **4. Discussion and conclusions**

The new European education guidelines establish the need to stimulate the development of students' skills (Llach & Alsina, 2009; Fernández, 2007; Muñoz, 2008) and stress the importance of compulsory education specifically in the promotion of communicative competence in its oral reading and writing forms (Pérez & Zayas, 2007; LOE, 2006). Nevertheless, it is common for formal education to address the written aspect of this competence in a less profound manner than the other dimensions. The prevailing psycholinguistic teaching trends focus on aspects with lower cognitive load, at the expense of communicative approaches (Clemente, Ramínez, & Sanchez, 2010; Fabregat, 2009; Gilbert & Graham, 2010; Lecuona, et al., 2003). The other main context of children's learning - the family – which could also help optimize the student's written communication skills (Axford, 2007; Cutler & Graham, 2008; Feiler, 2003; Jones & Christensen, 1999; Rasinki & Padaka, 2009; Reyes, et al., 2007; Saint Laurent & Giasson, 2005), also shows little interest in developing them. Thus, the consideration that composing written texts is a complex process that requires instruction and practice set in context and motivation to promote and facilitate its assimilation (de Caso & García, 2006a; de Caso & García, 2006b) led to our interest in finding whether the teaching of written composition through psycho-communicative methods in different educational contexts could redress the imbalance and fill the gaps resulting from the incomplete traditional educational approach. Based on this perspective, we developed this research, which sought to test the differential effectiveness of a writing intervention program, implemented in two different contexts (school and home) and by two different educational figures (parents-teachers), to optimize students' writing competence. We also sought to determine families' ability to carry out this type of instruction and indirectly validate the effectiveness of a training program designed and implemented to prepare them for this. The results obtained in the course of this research project lead us to several relevant conclusions.

First, the instructional program designed to address the teaching of written composition focused on the product and process, was highly effective in promoting the improvement of the quality of pupils' written texts. This was as expected, considering that the effectiveness of these interventions had been tested by this research team in previous studies (Arias & García, 2007; García, Fidalgo, & Robledo, 2010; Fidalgo, García, Torrance, & Robledo, 2009; Fidalgo, Torrance, & García, 2008). However, this study's main contribution is the finding that the context and the figures of implementation produce no differential effect on program effectiveness. Both family members at home (EFP group) and faculty in the classroom (PRO group) successfully carried out instructional sessions with children, passing on knowledge and methods useful to significantly enhance their writing proficiency when compared to control groups (CO and PAD). Thus, in addition to ratifying the internal efficiency of the program, we can confirm the potential of both environments to optimize the learning of writing, as well as similarities in the teaching capacities of teachers and parents. In both cases, the teaching carried out resulted in students producing better structured, more consistent and higher quality texts. Moreover, in both cases these improvements were maintained over time and, most noticeably, were applied across different text typologies.

Families, despite not being teaching professionals with relevant training have specific advantages (interest in their children's education, availability, direct contact with the child, bonding, etc.). They can therefore contribute very effectively to the optimization of writing,

The new European education guidelines establish the need to stimulate the development of students' skills (Llach & Alsina, 2009; Fernández, 2007; Muñoz, 2008) and stress the importance of compulsory education specifically in the promotion of communicative competence in its oral reading and writing forms (Pérez & Zayas, 2007; LOE, 2006). Nevertheless, it is common for formal education to address the written aspect of this competence in a less profound manner than the other dimensions. The prevailing psycholinguistic teaching trends focus on aspects with lower cognitive load, at the expense of communicative approaches (Clemente, Ramínez, & Sanchez, 2010; Fabregat, 2009; Gilbert & Graham, 2010; Lecuona, et al., 2003). The other main context of children's learning - the family – which could also help optimize the student's written communication skills (Axford, 2007; Cutler & Graham, 2008; Feiler, 2003; Jones & Christensen, 1999; Rasinki & Padaka, 2009; Reyes, et al., 2007; Saint Laurent & Giasson, 2005), also shows little interest in developing them. Thus, the consideration that composing written texts is a complex process that requires instruction and practice set in context and motivation to promote and facilitate its assimilation (de Caso & García, 2006a; de Caso & García, 2006b) led to our interest in finding whether the teaching of written composition through psycho-communicative methods in different educational contexts could redress the imbalance and fill the gaps resulting from the incomplete traditional educational approach. Based on this perspective, we developed this research, which sought to test the differential effectiveness of a writing intervention program, implemented in two different contexts (school and home) and by two different educational figures (parents-teachers), to optimize students' writing competence. We also sought to determine families' ability to carry out this type of instruction and indirectly validate the effectiveness of a training program designed and implemented to prepare them for this. The results obtained in the course of this research project lead us to

First, the instructional program designed to address the teaching of written composition focused on the product and process, was highly effective in promoting the improvement of the quality of pupils' written texts. This was as expected, considering that the effectiveness of these interventions had been tested by this research team in previous studies (Arias & García, 2007; García, Fidalgo, & Robledo, 2010; Fidalgo, García, Torrance, & Robledo, 2009; Fidalgo, Torrance, & García, 2008). However, this study's main contribution is the finding that the context and the figures of implementation produce no differential effect on program effectiveness. Both family members at home (EFP group) and faculty in the classroom (PRO group) successfully carried out instructional sessions with children, passing on knowledge and methods useful to significantly enhance their writing proficiency when compared to control groups (CO and PAD). Thus, in addition to ratifying the internal efficiency of the program, we can confirm the potential of both environments to optimize the learning of writing, as well as similarities in the teaching capacities of teachers and parents. In both cases, the teaching carried out resulted in students producing better structured, more consistent and higher quality texts. Moreover, in both cases these improvements were maintained over time and, most noticeably, were applied across different text typologies.

Families, despite not being teaching professionals with relevant training have specific advantages (interest in their children's education, availability, direct contact with the child, bonding, etc.). They can therefore contribute very effectively to the optimization of writing,

**4. Discussion and conclusions** 

several relevant conclusions.

as the few previous localized empirical studies in this area had shown, although these mostly focused on initial stimulation or in recovering less complex elements from long-term memory (Axford, 2007; Feiler, 2003; Saint Lauren & Giasson, 2005) and did not systematically address higher-order processes in older children, which was the focus of our work.

This intervention program, which addressed the cognitive aspect specifically, we can confirm encouraged in both groups of students subjected to systematic instruction (EFP and PRO) the efficient activation of the psychological processes involved in written composition and was conducive to greater efficiency in this task, although it had a greater impact on the planning process specifically. This again confirms the potential for parents, not only to promote ways of helping their children improve their textual production, but also for advising them on the use of cognitive strategies that enable them to effectively activate the higher cognitive processes involved in writing.

In terms of motivational elements, we have to acknowledge that the program did not produce statistically significant changes in attitudes toward writing in any context, nor has it stimulated more adaptive attributional patterns. However, in the latter case, both peer groups (EFP and PRO) show a positive trend apparent in the increase of attributions to internal factors (effort) and the decrease in external factors (luck). This is possibly due to the stability of these personality constructs and the resulting difficulty in modifying them in a few sessions. The difficulty of optimizing them has been found in specific interventions aimed at motivation for writing (Garcia & de Caso, 2006). Moreover, with respect to efficacy, although there was an increase in the EFP and PRO groups compared with the PAD and CO groups, neither reached statistical significance. Perhaps this result is a consequence of the evolutionary trend that the development of self-efficacy follows, which is exemplified by the overestimation of students' writing ability in the initial stages of education, such as Primary (Pajares, Valiente, & Cheong, 2006 ).

Thirdly, as to whether increasing parental involvement in homework is sufficient to improve children's outcomes or whether prior training is required to enable them to do so, the results conclude that training contributes to a significantly higher level of success than just natural collaboration, as evidenced by the comparison of the EFP and PAD groups.

As for the parent training program, it has proven very effective and has managed to prepare parents to enhance the development of their children's written composition, not only by participating as role models or providing materials and resources, but also specifically instructing them in the higher-order cognitive processes that make up that skill through the use of homework.

Despite the limitations of this study we can confirm its positive results. The limitations are mainly related to low family involvement and high parents and teacher motivation to engage in instruction, which might account for the degree of positive effect of the program in encouraging the review process or stimulating motivational elements. Thus, the effectiveness of the intervention program to enhance improvements in students' written products in the third cycle of Primary education, its stability and application to other forms of writing, as well as to encourage the activation of the mental processes responsible for efficient text processing, especially in regard to planning, are all confirmed. Similarly, we conclude that the family context, and parents in particular, perfectly complement the teaching of writing. Their potential to stimulate their children's writing competence through

Preventing Children's Writing Difficulties Through Specific Intervention in the Home 125

Cusumano, K. (2008). Every mark on the page: education family and community members

Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: a national survey. *Journal* 

De Caso, A. M., & García, J. N. (2006a). Relación entre la motivación y la escritura

De Caso, A. M., & García, J. N. (2006b). What is missing from current writing intervention

Dunsmuir, S., & Blatchford, P. (2004). Predictors of writing competence in 4- to 7- year-old

Elish-Piper, L. (2010). Parent involvement in reading. *Illionois Reading Council Journal, 38*(4),

Fabregat, S. (2009). Competencia lingüística y expresión escrita en ESO: cinco textos de

Feiler, A. (2003). A home visiting project for reception children predicted to experience literacy difficulties. *British Journal of Special Education, 30*(3), 156-162. Fernández, M. P. (Coord. 2007). *La competencia en comunicación lingüística en las áreas del* 

Fidalgo, R., García, J. N., Torrance, M., & Robledo, P. (2009). Cómo enseñar composición

Frijters, J., Barron, R., & Brunello, M. (2000). Direct and mediated influences of home literacy

García, J. N. & de Caso, A. M. (2006). Comparison of the effects on writing attitudes and

disabilities. *International Journal of Educational Research, 43* (4-5), 272-289. García, J. N., & Fidalgo, R. (2003). Cambios metacognitivos de los procesos psicológicos de la

*of General and Applied Psychology], 56(2),* 239-253.

[Relationship between motivation and writing]. *Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología* 

programmes? The need for writing motivation programmes. *Estudios de Psicología* 

Daniel Cassany [Language proficiency and writing in ESO (Compulsory Secondary

*currículo [Linguistic communication competence in the different areas of the curriculum].* Madrid: Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, Instituto Superior de Formación del Profesorado [Madrid: Ministry of Education and Science, Institute of Teacher

escrita en el aula: Un modelo de instrucción cognitivo-estratégico y auto-regulado [How to teach writing composition in the classroom: A cognitive model of instruction and self-regulation]. *Aula Abierta [Open Education], 37(1),* 105-116. Fidalgo, R., Torrance, M., & García, J. N. (2008). The long term effects of strategy-focussed

writing instruction for grade six students. *Contemporary Educational Psychology,* 

and literacy interest on prereaders´oral vocabulary and early written language skill. *Journal of Educational Phychology, 92*(3), 466-477. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.92.3.466 Galbraith, D., & Torrance, M. (1999). Conceptual processes in writing: From problem solving

to text production. In M. Torrance and D. Galbraith (Eds.), *Knowing what to write. Conceptual processes in text production* (pp. 1-12). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University

writing self-efficacy of three different training programs in students with learning

escritura en alumnos de 3º de EP a 3º de ESO [Metacognitive changes in the psychological processes involved in writing in students from 3rd year of Primary Education to 3rd year of Secondary]. *Revista de Psicología General y Aplicada [Journal* 

about young children´s writing. *Language Arts, 86*(1), 9-17.

children. *British Journal of Educational Psychology*, 74, 461-483.

Education): five texts by Daniel Cassany]. *Caleidoscopio,* 2, 57-66.

*[Latin American Journal of Psychology], 38*(3), 477-492.

*of Educational Psychology,* 100(4), 907-919.

*[Psychology Studies], 27*(2), 221-242.

53-56.

Training].

*33*(4), 672-693.

Press.

help with homework was confirmed, while we found that for this to be truly effective it is necessary to provide prior systematic training. In this case we chose to create a parent training program, which has proven effective. Therefore, based on our research findings and considering that writing is a complex learning process requiring high doses of motivation and that all environmental stimulation appropriate to the characteristics of child favors its assimilation, we confirm the need for two elements. Firstly, to continue developing teaching schemes focused on this competence based on psychological and communicative approaches. Secondly, to increase the cooperation between school and family, uniting their efforts to improve educational conditions and to enable the students' optimal development, which will enable them to successfully adapt to the growing social demands placed on them (Torío, 2004).

#### **5. Acknowledgments**

During this research study, we received competitive funds from the Spanish Ministry of Education, Science and Innovation (MICINN) (EDU2010-19250 / EDUC) for 2010-2013, and Excellence Research Group funds from the Junta de Castilla y León (GR259), with FEDER funds from the European Union for 2009-2010-2011 (BOCyL 27 on April 2009). Both were awarded to the Director/Main Researcher (J. N. García). We are very grateful to Victoria Rosa Sturley for her help with the English version.

*Correspondence* should be addressed to Departamento de Psicología, Sociología y Filosofía. Área Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación. Campus de Vegazana s/n, 24071 – León, Spain. Phone: +34-987291041 (university); +34-987222118 (home); +34-652817871 (cell); Fax: +34-987291035 (university). E-mail: jn.garcia@unileon.es.

#### **6. References**


help with homework was confirmed, while we found that for this to be truly effective it is necessary to provide prior systematic training. In this case we chose to create a parent training program, which has proven effective. Therefore, based on our research findings and considering that writing is a complex learning process requiring high doses of motivation and that all environmental stimulation appropriate to the characteristics of child favors its assimilation, we confirm the need for two elements. Firstly, to continue developing teaching schemes focused on this competence based on psychological and communicative approaches. Secondly, to increase the cooperation between school and family, uniting their efforts to improve educational conditions and to enable the students' optimal development, which will enable them to successfully adapt to the growing social demands placed on them

During this research study, we received competitive funds from the Spanish Ministry of Education, Science and Innovation (MICINN) (EDU2010-19250 / EDUC) for 2010-2013, and Excellence Research Group funds from the Junta de Castilla y León (GR259), with FEDER funds from the European Union for 2009-2010-2011 (BOCyL 27 on April 2009). Both were awarded to the Director/Main Researcher (J. N. García). We are very grateful to Victoria

*Correspondence* should be addressed to Departamento de Psicología, Sociología y Filosofía. Área Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación. Campus de Vegazana s/n, 24071 – León, Spain. Phone: +34-987291041 (university); +34-987222118 (home); +34-652817871 (cell); Fax:

Alamargot, D., & Chanquoy, L. (2001). *Through the Models of Writing.* Dordrecht: Kluwer

Arias, O., & García, J. N. (2007). Eficacia de la instrucción en los aspectos mecánicos y/o

Axford, B. (2007). Parents and their children working together: a scaffolding literacy case

Bodovski, K., & Youn, M. (2010). Love, discipline, and elementary school achievement: the

Burnett, K., & Farkas, G. (2009). Poverty and family structure effects on children´s

Cayo, C. (2008). *Los menores con discapacidad en España [Children with disabilities in Spain].*

Clemente, M., Ramínez, E., & Sánchez, C. (2010). Resumen de enfoques teóricos y prácticas

semánticos de la revisión textual [Effectiveness of instruction in the mechanic and/or semantic aspects of text revision]. *Análisis y Modificación de Conducta* 

mathematics achievement: estimates from random and fixed effects models. *The* 

docentes en la enseñanza inicial de la lengua escrita [Summary of theoretical approaches and teaching practices in the initial teaching of written language].

(Torío, 2004).

**6. References** 

Academia Press.

Madrid: Ediciones Cinca.

**5. Acknowledgments** 

Rosa Sturley for her help with the English version.

+34-987291035 (university). E-mail: jn.garcia@unileon.es.

*[Analysis and Behavior Modification], 33(147)*, 5-30.

study. *Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 30*(1), 21-39.

role of family emotinal climate. *Social Science Research, 39*, 585

*Social Science Journal, 46*, 297-318. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2008.12.009

*Cultura y Educación [Culture and Education], 22*(3),313-328.


Preventing Children's Writing Difficulties Through Specific Intervention in the Home 127

McElvany, N., & Arle, C. (2007). The Berlin-Parent child program: desing and effects*.* 

Mensha, F., & Kiernan, E. (2010). Gender differences in educational attainment: influences of

Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (MEC, 2006). Ley orgánica 2/2006 de 3 de mayo, de

Montealegre, S., & Forero, L. (2006). Desarrollo de la lectoescritura: asdquisición y dominio

Muñoz, C. (2008). Desarrollar competencias. Un desafío de los docentes de primaria

Neuman, M., Hood, M., & Neuman, D. (2009). The scaffolding of emergent literacy skills in

Novoa, A. (2010). La construcción de un espacio educativo europeo: gobernando a través de

Olive, T., Kellogg, R. T., & Piolat, A. (2002). The triple task technique for studying the

Pardo, E. (2009). ¿Qué pueden aportar las familias a la escuela? [How can families help

Pérez, P., & Zayas, F. (2007). *Competencia en comunicación lingüística [Liguistic Communication* 

Persampieri, M., Gortmaker, V., Daly, E. J., Sheridan, S. M., & McCurdy, M. (2006).

Powell, D., Son, S., File, N., & San Juan, R. (2010). Parent-school relationships and children´s

Rasinki, T., & Padak, N. (2009). Write son. *The Reading Teacher, 62*(7), 618-620. doi:

*for studying writing* (pp. 31-61). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Pajares, F., Valiente, G., & Cheong, Y. F. (2006). Writing self-efficacy and its relation to

*Educativa [Classroom of Educative Innovation], 15*(170), 13-15.

the family environment. *British Educational Research Journal, 36*(2), 239-260.

[Literacy development: acquisition and proficiency]. *Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado [Inter-University Electronic Journal of* 

[Developing competences. A challenge for primary teachers]. *Aula de Innovación* 

the home environment: a case study. *Early Childhood Educational Journal*, 36, 313–

los datos y la comparación [Building a European education area: the governing through data comparison]. *Revista Española de Educación Comparada [Spanish Journal* 

process of writing. In T. Olive & C. M. Levy (Eds.) *Contemporary tools and techniques* 

gender, writing motivation, and writing competence: A developmental Perspective. In G. Rijlaarsdam, P. Boscolo, & S. Hidi (Eds.), *Studies in writing. Volume 23, Writing* 

schools?] *Actas do X Congresso Internacional Galego-Português de Psicopedagogia [Conference Proceedings of the 10th International Gallician-Portuguese Psychoeducation Congress]* (pp. 2153-2160). Braga: Centro de Investigação em Educação (CIEd),

Promoting parent use of empirically supported reading interventions: Two experimental investigations of child outcomes. *Behavioral Interventions,* 21, 31–57. Policastro, M., Mazeski, D. K., & McTague, B. (2010). Parent Involvement in Reading. *Illinois* 

academic and social outcomes in public school pre-kindergarten. *Journal of School* 

*Psychologie in Erziehung un Uterricht, 4*, 312-330

Educación (LOE) [Education Organic Law].

doi:10.1080/01411920902802198.

*Teacher Education], 9*(1), 25-40

319. doi 10.1007/s10643-008-0291-y

*of Comparative Education], 16,* 23-41.

Universidade Minho.

*and motivation* (pp. 145-162). Oxford: Elsevier.

*Competence]. Madrid:* Alianza Editorial.

*Reading Council Journal*, 39(1), 60-64.

*Psychology, 48*(4), 269-292.

10.1598/RT.62.7.9


García, J. N. & Fidalgo, R. (2006). Effects of two types of self-regulatory instruction programs

García, J. N., Fidalgo, R., & Robledo, P. (2010). The influence of two self-regulatory

García, J. N., Marbán, J. M. & de Caso, A. M. (2001). Evaluación colectiva de los procesos de

Gilbert, J., & Graham, S. (2010). Teaching Writing to Elementary Students in Grades 4-6: A

Graham, S. (1999). The role of Text Production Skills in Writing Development. *Learning* 

Hegarty, S. (2008). Investigación sobre educación especial en Europa [Research on special

Hood, M., Conlon, E., & Andrews, G. (2008). Preschool home literacy practices and

Jones, D., & Christensen, C. (1999). The relationship between automatic in handwriting and

Kellogg, R. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. *Journal of* 

Lacasa, P., Gómez, M., Reina, A. & Cosano, C. P. (1999). Los deberes escolares en una clase

Lecuona, P., Rodríguez, J., & Sánchez, C. (2003). Evaluación de modelos de composición

Primary education]. *Revista de Educación [Journal of Education], 332,* 301-326. Llach, S., & Alsina, Á. (2009). La adquisición de competencias básicas en Educación

Lozano, E., Galián, D., & Cabello, F. (2009). Intervención familiar en niños con trastornos del

education in Europe]. *Revista Electrónica Iberoamericana sobre Calidad Eficacia y Cambio en Educación [Ibero-American Electronic Journal on Quality, Efficiency and* 

children´s literacy development: a longitudinal analysis. *Journal of Educational* 

students, ability to generate written text. *Journal of Educational Psychology, 91*, 44-49.

de lengua [Homework in a language class]. *Cultura y Educación [Culture and* 

escrita en Educación Primaria [Evaluation of models of written composition in

Primaria: una aproximación desde la Didáctica de la lengua y de las matemáticas [The adquisition of basic competences in Primary Education: An interdisciplinary approach from the teaching of language and mathematics]. *Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado [Inter-University Electronic Journal of* 

lenguaje: una revisión [Family intervention on children with language disorders: a review]. *Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 7*(3), 1419-1448. McArthur, C., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (2006, Eds.). *Handbook of writing research*. New

efficacy. *Learning Disability Quarterly, 29*(3), 181-211.

595-611). Almería: Education and Psychology

*psychopedagogical intervention*]. Barcelona: Ariel.

*Disability Quarterly, 22*(2), 75-77.

*Change in Education], 6*(2), 191-199.

*Writing Research, 1(1),* 1-26.

*Teacher Education], 12* (3), 71-85.

York: The Guilford Press.

*Education],* 13, 71-88.

National Survey. *Elementary School Journal*, *110*(4), 494-518.

*Phychology, 100*(2), 252-271. Doi:10.1037//0022-0663.100.2.252

on students with learning disabilities in writing products, processes, and self

instructional programs in the development of writing competence in students with and without learning disabilities. In J. de la Fuente, & A. E. Mourad (Eds.) *International handbook on Applying Self-Regulated Learning in Different Settings (pp*.

planificación y factores psicológicos en la escritura [Collective assessment of writing planning processes and psychological factors]. En J. N. García, *Dificultades de aprendizaje e intervención psicopedagógica* (pp. 151-155) [*Learning disabilities and* 


**8** 

*University of León* 

*Spain* 

**The Family Environment of** 

**Students with Learning Disabilities and ADHD** 

In recent decades there has been a proliferation of studies on the empirical aspect of the family influence on school development of children, and trends have emerged which analyze the effects of household structural and dynamic variables on student learning (Xia, 2010). Results show that family socioeconomic level (Dearing, McCartney & Taylor, 2009; Gil, 2011, Liu & Lu, 2008; Park, 2008), its typology characteristics (Burnett & Farkas, 2008; Gennetian, 2005 ), a suitable home environment (Barkauskiene, 2009; Bodovski & Youn, 2010; Campbell & Berne, 2007; Ghazarian & Buehler, 2010; Khan, Haynes, Armstrong, & Ronher, 2010) and parents' positive outlook on education and their active involvement in it (Flouri & Buchanan, 2004; Phillipson, 2010; Powell, Son, File, & San Juan, 2010; Regner, Loose, & Dumas, 2009; Sirvani, 2007; Mo & Singh, 2008) are factors affecting the academic development of the vast majority of children. This influence is even more relevant for pupils with complex problems that can affect their ability to learn, such as specific learning disabilities (hereafter LD) or attention deficit disorder with/without hyperactivity (ADHD). Such pupils usually have special educational needs which require specific attention in all microenvironments in which education takes place, including the family (Snowling, Muter,

LD is a concept that encompasses a heterogeneous group of disorders that manifest in significant difficulties in understanding, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, and mathematical ability, presumably of biological origin and related to the functioning of the central nervous system (Kavale & Forness, 2000; Lerner & Kline, 2006). As for ADHD, it is a neuropsychological disorder that is characterized by a persistent pattern of inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity that affects the social, academic and/or work life areas of the sufferer's life (Frazier, Youngstron , Glutimg, Watkins, & Marley, 2007; Jakobson & Kikas, 2007). Therefore, it is maintained that ADHD and LD are disorders of biologicalgenetic origin which are intrinsic to the individual. However, there has now been a shift in focus towards environmental variables, including the family, which are it is claimed can enhance or minimize the negative effects of these difficulties and, therefore, must be thoroughly examined and taken into consideration (Pheula, Rohde, & Schmitz, 2011;

The research available on learning and environmental conditions confirms the importance of adequate family functioning, as well as the existence of a satisfactory home environment to

**1. Introduction** 

& Carroll, 2007; Shur-Fen , 2007).

Snowling, et al. 2007; Shur-Fen, 2007).

Patricia Robledo-Ramón and Jesús-Nicasio García-Sánchez

