**3. Results**

116 Learning Disabilities

Practice in pairs of parents, role-playing, complete processing of a text with all the strategies. Instructor

Analysis of evidence of the potential for adult

expectations to inform children's performance. Sharing of

Finding parents' mistakes, general review of the writing

Presentation of incomplete modeling and instructor

effects on children and writing. Exemplification of application of what was learnt to other types of texts.

Homework presentation, questions.

Presentation of homework, questions.

MEETING METHODOLOGY

thoughts and opinions.

implementation.

Session 6 Final evaluation Program evaluation, suggestions for improvement,

commenting on aspects of interest regarding its implementation at home. Immediately afterwards we activated parents' knowledge of the content that we were going to work on during that session and then proceeded to address it through various training activities. We generally used active learning methodologies, such as analysis and reflection on real life situations, practical assumptions or empirical information. We used group techniques such as guided discussions, collaborative work among peers, practicing together and reading and analyzing documents. Also, since we sought to build behavioral skills in parents who were offered conceptual and procedural knowledge in relation to higher order cognitive processes involved in writing, providing them with useful resources and strategies was important to enable them to transmit this knowledge to their children at home. We used techniques such as role-playing, behavioral rehearsal, cognitive modeling, thinking aloud, cognitive strategies to guide the writing process, and resources and tools such as graphic

Finally, given the need to set the practical applications of what was learnt in the home, the different ways of application in the home were discussed and analyzed (which were related

We initially carried out the design of the approach and of the instructional program. Following this, we planned and developed the parent training program. This program was adapted from the Families Training School format. Once designed, we selected the potential schools to participate in the research project following the process described in the

process.

feedback.

SESSION No.

Session 5 The potential of parental expectations General essay writing process.

Table 5. Synthesis program for parents

organizers and mnemonic pictures.

**2.4 Procedure** 

participants section.

to writing assignments that teachers proposed as homework).

The results presented were obtained by statistical treatment of data with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 18.0.

Preventing Children's Writing Difficulties Through Specific Intervention in the Home 119

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

Productivit

EFP (n = 26) PRO (n = 35) PAD (n = 25) CO (n =26) Time (pre-post) Time x Group x Variables *M pre SD Pre M post SD Post M pre SD pre M post SD post M pre SD pre M post SD post M pre SD pre M post SD post* 

Text-based measures

y 74.85 44.31 91.96 21.04 72.86 23.63 90.68 31.42 63.68 28.36 66.88 27.13 76.19 21.37 49.46 22.53 .621 .432 .006 .813 <.001 .187

C. referential 6.42 4.95 13.04 4.10 8.11 5.32 12.11 6.18 5.04 3.42 7.48 5.41 6.73 4.73 4.04 3.96 18.82 <.001 .148 10.33 <.001 .223

C. relational 5.85 4.04 12.31 2.90 5.43 2.31 12.03 5.22 4.92 2.73 5.64 3.30 4.92 2.56 3.77 2.55 54.11 <.001 .334 21.73 <.001 .376

C. total 12.27 8.31 25.35 6.34 13.54 6.69 24.14 10.88 9.96 5.21 13.12 7.84 11.65 6.74 7.81 6.13 38.87 <.001 .265 16.98 <.001 .321

Others C. 0.96 0.77 3.08 0.84 1.20 0.83 2.71 0.89 1.20 1.04 1.52 1.08 1.38 0.85 0.69 0.88 62.32 <.001 .366 35.85 <.001 .499

Structure 1.15 0.46 2.81 0.40 1.14 0.43 2.69 0.53 1.28 0.54 1.24 0.52 1.19 0.40 1.23 0.51 163 <.001 .601 54.59 <.001 .603

Reader-based measures

Structure .69 .61 3.08 0.89 0.85 0.49 2.63 1.06 0.68 0.62 0.92 0.75 0.73 0.45 0.46 0.58 126.4 <.001 .539 45.33 <.001 .557

Coherence 1.23 0.71 2.96 0.87 1.20 0.67 2.63 0.87 1.2 0.95 1.36 0.95 1.30 0.61 1 0.74 60.88 <.001 .360 25.54 <.001 .415

Quality 1.57 0.85 3.38 0.94 2.08 0.61 3.34 1.02 1.76 0.92 2 0.76 2.11 0.58 1.69 0.83 56.22 <.001 .342 26.38 <.001 .423

Total 3.53 2 9.81 2.26 4.22 1.68 8.97 2.66 3.84 2.56 4.44 2.25 4.15 1.43 3.27 1.97 124.44 <.001 .535 48.17 <.001 .572

*F*(1, 108) *p* 

η2

*F*(3, 108) *p* 

η2

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

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 and follow-up measures.
