**1. Introduction**

104 Learning Disabilities

Strnadová, I. (2006). Stress and resilence in families of children with specific learning

Trainor, A. (2005). Self-determination perceptions and behaviors of diverse students with

Tungland, M. (2002). Meaningful parent involvement. En M. Tungland (Ed.), *Unlocking* 

Van Otterloo, S., Van der Leij, A., & Veldkamp, E. (2006). Treatment integrity in home-based

LD during the transition planning process. *Journal of Learning Disabilities*, *38*(3), 233-

*Potential: Key Components of Programming for Students with Learning Disabilities (pp.* 

disabilities. *Revista complutense de educaciçon,17*(2), 35-50.

pre-reading intervention programme. *Dislexia,* 12, 155-176.

*11-16).* Edmonton (Canada): Alberta Learning.

249.

In recent times there has been a wealth of studies, both from the empirical (Bodovski & Youn, 2010, Burnett & Farkas, 2008; Mensha & Kiernan, 2010; Powell, Son, file, & John, 2010; Robledo & Garcia, 2009; Xia, 2010; Yun & Kusum, 2008) and from the legal point of view, confirming the need to consider the family, and especially parents, in educational processes, both due to their natural impact on student learning and for their potential to successfully stimulate students (Cayo, 2008; Hegarty, 2008; Hood, Conlon, & Andrews, 2009; Rogers, Wiener, Marton, & Tannock, 2009). Moreover, in the European context, given the constant changes the education systems are facing and the increasing educational requirements (Novoa, 2010), the context that supports the important role of parents in the academic progress of their children is especially relevant.

Nowadays, skills development it an established priority (Muñoz, 2008). Skills development is defined as the sets of knowledge, skills and attitudes required to transfer and apply knowledge from different areas and subjects to reality in order to understand it and solve real problems with expertise and efficiency across different types of contexts (Junta de Castilla y León [Government of the Region of Castile and Leon], 2009). So from this perspective, it is believed that the involvement of people and everyday environments in students' lives could be an excellent supplement to formal educational institutions in their efforts to empower children to develop lifelong learning applicable to real life. When we take into account the fact that the natural context where students spend more time other than school is the family it becomes apparent how ideal it is to involve parents in the improvement of basic skills, including the most important area in compulsory education – linguistic communication competence (Fernández, 2007).

Communicative competence refers to the use of language as a means of oral and written communication, learning, building one's thinking and personal and behavioral regulation. It is therefore highly relevant in the field of education and is very applicable to the social field, which means it can be approached through different contexts (Frijters, Barron, & Brunello, 2000; Hood, et al., 2009; Reyes, Alexandra, & Azuara, 2007; Strasser & Lissi, 2009). Thus, the goal of educators is to train competent communicators to operate naturally in different everyday communicative contexts that involve both the use of oral language and reading and writing (Pérez & Zayas, 2007). However, despite the triple configuration of this competence, empirical experience confirms that its stimulation in schools tends to offer a

Preventing Children's Writing Difficulties Through Specific Intervention in the Home 107

This evidence confirms that parents, with adequate support, can develop students' written competency, thus demonstrating the potential and effectiveness of direct intervention (Cutler & Graham, 2008; Dunsmuir & Blatchford, 2004; Lacasa , et al. 1999; Neuman, Hood, & Neumam, 2009; Persampieri, Gortmaker, Daly, Sheridan, & McCurdy, 2006; Reyes et al. 2007; Romero, 2007). Nevertheless, specialized research is still scarce, especially when compared to the set of empirical research on family collaboration to stimulate oral language and reading (Lozano, Galian, & Cabello, 2009; McElvany & Arlet, 2007; Policastro, Mazeski, & McTague, 2010). It is also limited in relation to the age of the children, the type of skills addressed or the process of training offered to parents (García & Fidalgo, 2003; Montealegre & Forero, 2006). These findings justify the development of research that analyzes the ability of families to contribute to the teaching of written composition from cognitive-communicative perspectives, as well as the need to develop and empirically validate the effectiveness of parent training programs aimed at enabling them to increase their involvement in the optimization of this competence, which is precisely the purpose of our research study. We intend to broaden the field of research regarding written composition, seeking to overcome some of the constraints identified in the teaching and study of this competence, mainly related to the intervention in central aspects belonging to different communicative contexts. Thus, the first objective of this study is to explore the effectiveness of an intervention program in written composition, focusing on the written product and the activation of higher cognitive processes involved in word processing, to increase the children's performance in writing, both in terms of its product and of the process, and to optimize other motivational-affective variables. The aim is also to find if any improvements are stable in time and if not, generalize to different textual typologies. The secondary objective of the research project is to find out whether there are differential effects on program effectiveness in relation to the environment (school and home) and the figures (parents and teachers) involved in its implementation. The third objective is to determine whether increasing parental involvement in writing homework is sufficient to improve outcomes for children or whether families require prior training to enable them to do so. This objective seeks to find the effectiveness of parent training specifically aimed at enabling them to teach written composition by helping with homework. Finally, in line with this, we studied the children's

To achieve this, we used four experimental groups according to the modality of written composition intervention students had received in connection with the degree of implication of agents in charge of implementing it. In the first one, called EFP (parental training school), parents, after training at a school, implemented the intervention program in written composition with their children at home through the use of homework. Teachers, meanwhile, continued the regular process of teaching writing, except they increased the amount of homework related to the composition of written texts to meet the demands of the research project. In the second group, called PAD (parents help in homework), teachers operated similarly, while the parents increased their assistance with text writing homework, without receiving any specific prior training. In the third group, called PRO, it was teachers themselves who carried out the intervention program in the classroom, while families acted as usual, not having been asked for any specific collaboration. In the last group (CO, ordinary curriculum), teachers maintained the traditional teaching of writing and families

awareness of parents' help and their assessment of it.

offered children the usual academic support.

limited systematic treatment of writing, especially with regard to text composition (Fabregat, 2009; Gilbert & Graham, 2010; Lecuona, Rodríguez, & Sánchez, 2003). Meanwhile, at home, the parents themselves, in their natural process of encouraging their children's communicative development, sometimes also seem to forget writing (Cusumano, 2008). Consequently, the writing aspect of communicative competence is poorly addressed by schools and families, which tend to focus, when they devote their attention to writing, primarily on mechanical elements. They do so to the detriment of the more complex issues, aspects of higher order that would lead to true written competence, and whose complexity, according recent theoretical models, requires greater attention. This model emphasizes that writing is a highly demanding task, dependent on several modulating factors of cognitive and emotional nature, that requires the implementation of a set of specific mental processes related to planning, editing and revising the text, which require a big cognitive effort and mean it is unlikely for students to complete them successfully exclusively through the use of natural abilities (Alamargot & Chanquoy, 2001; Galbraith & Torrance, 1999; Graham, 1999; Kellogg, 2008; MacArthur, Graham, & Fitzgerald, 2006; Wong, 1999; Wray, 1998). Consequently, it is argued that learning to write requires explicit instruction that promotes and facilitates it.

At present, the complexity of the process of composing written texts is widely recognized, as well as its practical nature as a socially applicable communication tool. All of this points to the need to take action to overcome traditional cultural limitations in its teaching. The development of this skill can take place in the context of everyday communication, the family context being one of such settings (Pardo, 2009).

In line with the above, research confirms that the habit of writing is more common in students whose families provide models and positive attitudes towards written composition tasks (Reyes, et al., 2007; Romero, 2007). It also states that the daily writing activities carried out at home, where children and parents interact, exert an important influence on students understanding the usefulness of writing, awakening a love of it in them (Lacasa, Gomez, Queen, & Cosano, 1999). Similarly it has been shown that children acquire the ability to perform better text compositions when these tasks are carried out in context with real communicative purposes (Reyes, et al., 2007).

Aware of this, some practitioners have developed guidelines on how to assist families with children in the stimulation of writing through natural tasks and by offering models that demonstrate its applicability (Elish-Piper, 2010; Rasinki & Padaka, 2009). Meanwhile, other teams of professionals have increased the role of parents in the teaching of writing, implementing specific training programs, in which parents are taught strategies to successfully develop children's literacy, help them with their homework or increase the number of activities that involve writing at home (Axford, 2007; Saint Lauren & Giasson, 2005). Other practices undertaken at the empirical and practical level, focus on the prevention or treatment of learning difficulties in this area through family support. Generally, these give parents advice, through home visits or regular meetings, on how to help their children with writing. They are also taught patterns for enriching the literacy environment of the home, activities for working with children and basic notions about the importance of providing feedback or reinforcement. Usually, these practices are highly effective. They have shown how families' interventions cause students to adjust their pace of learning to the level expected for their age or level of education, and even manage to overcome their specific difficulties to improve their writing further (Feiler, 2003; Jones & Christensen, 1999).

limited systematic treatment of writing, especially with regard to text composition (Fabregat, 2009; Gilbert & Graham, 2010; Lecuona, Rodríguez, & Sánchez, 2003). Meanwhile, at home, the parents themselves, in their natural process of encouraging their children's communicative development, sometimes also seem to forget writing (Cusumano, 2008). Consequently, the writing aspect of communicative competence is poorly addressed by schools and families, which tend to focus, when they devote their attention to writing, primarily on mechanical elements. They do so to the detriment of the more complex issues, aspects of higher order that would lead to true written competence, and whose complexity, according recent theoretical models, requires greater attention. This model emphasizes that writing is a highly demanding task, dependent on several modulating factors of cognitive and emotional nature, that requires the implementation of a set of specific mental processes related to planning, editing and revising the text, which require a big cognitive effort and mean it is unlikely for students to complete them successfully exclusively through the use of natural abilities (Alamargot & Chanquoy, 2001; Galbraith & Torrance, 1999; Graham, 1999; Kellogg, 2008; MacArthur, Graham, & Fitzgerald, 2006; Wong, 1999; Wray, 1998). Consequently, it is argued that learning to write requires explicit instruction that promotes and facilitates it.

At present, the complexity of the process of composing written texts is widely recognized, as well as its practical nature as a socially applicable communication tool. All of this points to the need to take action to overcome traditional cultural limitations in its teaching. The development of this skill can take place in the context of everyday communication, the

In line with the above, research confirms that the habit of writing is more common in students whose families provide models and positive attitudes towards written composition tasks (Reyes, et al., 2007; Romero, 2007). It also states that the daily writing activities carried out at home, where children and parents interact, exert an important influence on students understanding the usefulness of writing, awakening a love of it in them (Lacasa, Gomez, Queen, & Cosano, 1999). Similarly it has been shown that children acquire the ability to perform better text compositions when these tasks are carried out in context with real

Aware of this, some practitioners have developed guidelines on how to assist families with children in the stimulation of writing through natural tasks and by offering models that demonstrate its applicability (Elish-Piper, 2010; Rasinki & Padaka, 2009). Meanwhile, other teams of professionals have increased the role of parents in the teaching of writing, implementing specific training programs, in which parents are taught strategies to successfully develop children's literacy, help them with their homework or increase the number of activities that involve writing at home (Axford, 2007; Saint Lauren & Giasson, 2005). Other practices undertaken at the empirical and practical level, focus on the prevention or treatment of learning difficulties in this area through family support. Generally, these give parents advice, through home visits or regular meetings, on how to help their children with writing. They are also taught patterns for enriching the literacy environment of the home, activities for working with children and basic notions about the importance of providing feedback or reinforcement. Usually, these practices are highly effective. They have shown how families' interventions cause students to adjust their pace of learning to the level expected for their age or level of education, and even manage to overcome their specific

difficulties to improve their writing further (Feiler, 2003; Jones & Christensen, 1999).

family context being one of such settings (Pardo, 2009).

communicative purposes (Reyes, et al., 2007).

This evidence confirms that parents, with adequate support, can develop students' written competency, thus demonstrating the potential and effectiveness of direct intervention (Cutler & Graham, 2008; Dunsmuir & Blatchford, 2004; Lacasa , et al. 1999; Neuman, Hood, & Neumam, 2009; Persampieri, Gortmaker, Daly, Sheridan, & McCurdy, 2006; Reyes et al. 2007; Romero, 2007). Nevertheless, specialized research is still scarce, especially when compared to the set of empirical research on family collaboration to stimulate oral language and reading (Lozano, Galian, & Cabello, 2009; McElvany & Arlet, 2007; Policastro, Mazeski, & McTague, 2010). It is also limited in relation to the age of the children, the type of skills addressed or the process of training offered to parents (García & Fidalgo, 2003; Montealegre & Forero, 2006).

These findings justify the development of research that analyzes the ability of families to contribute to the teaching of written composition from cognitive-communicative perspectives, as well as the need to develop and empirically validate the effectiveness of parent training programs aimed at enabling them to increase their involvement in the optimization of this competence, which is precisely the purpose of our research study. We intend to broaden the field of research regarding written composition, seeking to overcome some of the constraints identified in the teaching and study of this competence, mainly related to the intervention in central aspects belonging to different communicative contexts.

Thus, the first objective of this study is to explore the effectiveness of an intervention program in written composition, focusing on the written product and the activation of higher cognitive processes involved in word processing, to increase the children's performance in writing, both in terms of its product and of the process, and to optimize other motivational-affective variables. The aim is also to find if any improvements are stable in time and if not, generalize to different textual typologies. The secondary objective of the research project is to find out whether there are differential effects on program effectiveness in relation to the environment (school and home) and the figures (parents and teachers) involved in its implementation. The third objective is to determine whether increasing parental involvement in writing homework is sufficient to improve outcomes for children or whether families require prior training to enable them to do so. This objective seeks to find the effectiveness of parent training specifically aimed at enabling them to teach written composition by helping with homework. Finally, in line with this, we studied the children's awareness of parents' help and their assessment of it.

To achieve this, we used four experimental groups according to the modality of written composition intervention students had received in connection with the degree of implication of agents in charge of implementing it. In the first one, called EFP (parental training school), parents, after training at a school, implemented the intervention program in written composition with their children at home through the use of homework. Teachers, meanwhile, continued the regular process of teaching writing, except they increased the amount of homework related to the composition of written texts to meet the demands of the research project. In the second group, called PAD (parents help in homework), teachers operated similarly, while the parents increased their assistance with text writing homework, without receiving any specific prior training. In the third group, called PRO, it was teachers themselves who carried out the intervention program in the classroom, while families acted as usual, not having been asked for any specific collaboration. In the last group (CO, ordinary curriculum), teachers maintained the traditional teaching of writing and families offered children the usual academic support.

Preventing Children's Writing Difficulties Through Specific Intervention in the Home 109

First, to select the schools, we took several criteria into account with the aim of achieving the maximum possible similarity between them, both with regard to their structure and organization, and with regard to the characteristics of students and families. Specifically, we selected state schools in which the teachers' profile, teacher-student ratios and the availability of human and material resources or infrastructures were similar. In addition, these centers hosted middle-class families with traditional structures and were mostly Spanish. Finally, based on the objectives of our the research and considering the interests and availability of schools and families we established the need to involve four schools. As noted, we tried to control their differences, thereby trying to overcome the possible handicaps resulting from the impossibility of making a completely random distribution of participants to experimental groups, as the involvement of parents and teachers was

Of the institutions addressed, two of them declined the option of increasing family collaboration, and were thus assigned to the PAD and EFP experimental groups. In these cases, only the parents who showed interested in family training were enrolled in it, which determined the group of students in EFP. Other parents of those schools, unable to attend the training sessions, chose the option of assisting their children more actively with writing assignments and were assigned to the PAD group. Therefore, children in groups FP and PAD were enrolled in the same schools, were classmates and had the same teachers, so that one group served as control for the other. PRO was carried out at a third school. The faculty of the third cycle of primary was responsible for the direct implementation of the intervention program in written composition in 5th and 6th year of primary. The last school took part in the CO group. It therefore only carried out the relevant assessments of students in grades 5 and 6, maintaining the ordinary curriculum regarding teaching of writing and

regular family help with homework, thus also acting as a control for the PRO group.

**2.2.1 Performance assessment in written composition: product and process** 

To evaluate the written performance of students we sought to cover their written products as cognitive processes activated in word processing, using different tools previously

The written products were evaluated using two types of measures, some based on objective evidence collected in the text or text-based measures (MBT). Others used subjective criteria, based on the overall interpretation of the text by the reader (MBL). Table 3 lists the parameters included in the MBT, as well as the criteria to be observed by the reader to

We would like to emphasize that since all these measurements, imply an opinion, assessment or interpretation on the part of the evaluator, corrections were made by two experts who worked independently. We then calculated their rates of agreement, which ranged overall between quite high (between kappa 0.6 and 0.8) and very high (kappa

voluntary.

**2.2 Instruments** 

**Product Measures** 

validated by the research team.

estimate their subjective ratings.

greater than 0.8 points).

**measures** 
