The impact of intervention programs for improving textual production in children of 4th grade

Ana Cristina Silva, Sandra Borges, Tiago Almeida, Sónia Quintão


Explicit feedback is an important factor in the revision process to give children’s clues to evaluate their own narrative text (McCurdy, Skinner, Watson, & Shriver, 2008. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of a narrative writing programme where the experiment gave to 4th grade children an instrument to revise their text. The participants were 71 children from 4th grade, from classrooms were teachers hardly gave them instructions about the structure of narrative texts. Children were divided in 3 different experimental groups that were submitted to 3 different types of writing programmes and 1 control group. Children were equivalent on cognitive level and on language development. Each experimental group, had to write down, 17 narrative texts, one for session. Children from experimental group 1 and 2 were given an instrument with a narrative structure to evaluate by their own means the quality of their text. Children from experimental group 3 were only asked to revise the text, without any further instruction. Control group children spent the same amount of time in math exercises and reading. The children from all experimental group improved the quality of their narrative when compared with children from control group, according PROESC criteria. However, the texts from children of experimental group, 1, 2 and 3 had not significant different in what concerns to children’s evolution from pre to post-test. This suggest the importance of the image sequence as support for children’s revision process.


Narrative texts, Text revision, Auto-regulate learning.


Alonso-Tapia, J., & Panadero, E. (2012). Effects of self-assessment scripts on self-regulation and learning. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 33, 385-397.

Arter, J., & McTighe, J. (2001). Scoring rubrics in the classroom: Using performance criteria for assessment and improving student performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Berninger, V. W., Mizokawa, D. T., & Bragg, R. (1991). Theory based diagnosis and remediation of writing disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 29, 57-79.

Bissell, A. N., & Lemons, P. P. (2006). A new method for assessing critical thinking in the classroom. BioScience, 56, 66-72. Retrieved from[0066:ANMFAC]2.0.CO;2

Brunstein, J. C., & Glaser, C. (2011). Testing path-analytic mediation model of how self-regulated writing strategies improve fourth graders’ composition skills: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 922-938. doi: 10.1037/a0024622

Butterfield, E. (1994). Children’s writing: Toward a process theory of development of skilled writing. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Castelló, M., & Monereo, C. (2005). Students’ note-taking as a knowledge-construction tool. Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 5, 265-285.

Chanquoy, L. (2001). How to make it easier for children to revise their writing: A study of text revision from 3rd to 5th grades. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 15-41. doi: 10.1348/000709901158370

Cuetos, F., Ramos, J. L., & Ruano, E. (2002). PROESC: Evaluación de los procesos de escritura. Madrid: TEA.

De la Paz, S., Swanson, P., & Graham, S. (1998). The contribution of executive control to the revising by students with writing and learning difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 203-222.

Ekholm, E., Zumbrunn, S., & Conklin, S. (2015). The relation of college student self-efficacy toward writing and writing self-regulation aptitude: Writing feedback perceptions as a mediating variable. Teaching in Higher Education, 20, 197-207. Retrieved from

Fayol, M. (2004). Text and cognition. In T. Nunes & P. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of children’s literacy (pp. 181-197). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Fayol, M., & Schneuwly, B. (1987). La mise en texte et ses problèmes. In J. Chiss, J. Meyer, J. Laurent, H. Romian, & B. Schnewly (Eds.), Apprendre/enseigner à produire des textes écrits (pp. 223-239). Bruxelas: De Boeck.

Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 57, 481-506.

Fitzgerald, J., & Teasley, A. B. (1986). Effects of instruction in narrative structure on children’s writing. Journal of educational psychology, 78(6), 424-432.

Gallavan, N. P., & Kottler, E. (2009). Constructing rubrics and assessing progress collaboratively with social studies students. The Social Studies, 100(4), 154-159. Retrieved from

Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching expressive writing to students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 251-272. Retrieved from

Graham, S., Schwartz, S., & MacArthur, C. (1995). Effects of goal setting and procedural facilitation on the revising behavior and writing performance of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 230-240.

Hadji, C. (1997). L’évaluation démystifiée. Paris: Editions Sociales Françaises.

Harris, K. R., Santangelo, T., & Graham, S. (2010). Metacognition and strategies instruction in writing. In H. S. Waters & W. Schneider (Eds.), Metacognition, strategy use, and instruction (pp. 226-256). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77, 81-112. Retrieved from

Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of the writing process. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hayes, J. R. (2000). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In R. Indrisano & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on writing: Research, theory and practice (pp. 6-44).

Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Hayes, J. R., Flower, L., Schriver, K. A., Stratman, J., & Carey, L. (1987). Cognitive processes in revision. Advances in Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, 176-240.

MacArthur, C. A., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning disabled students’ composing under three methods of text production: Handwriting, word processing, and dictation. Journal Special Education, 21, 22-42. Retrieved from

McCurdy, M., Skinner, C., Watson, S., & Shriver, M. (2008). Examining the effects of a comprehensive writing program on the writing performance of middle school students with learning disabilities in written expression. School Psychology Quartely, 23, 471-586.

Montanero, M., Lucero, M., & Fernández, M. J. (2014). Iterative co-evaluation with a rubric of narrative texts in Primary Education/Coevaluación iterativa con rúbrica de textos narrativos en la Educación Primaria. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 37, 184-220. Retrieved from

Pajares, F. (2003). Crenças de autoeficácia, motivação e realização na escrita: Uma revisão da literatura. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 139-158.

Panadero, E., Alonso-Tapia, J., & Huertas, J. A. (2012). Rubrics and self-assessment scripts effects on self-regulation, learning and self-efficacy in secondary education. Learning and individual differences, 22, 806-813.

Pessoa, A. P., Correa, J., & Spinillo, A. (2010). Contexto de produção e o estabelecimento da coerência na escrita de histórias por crianças. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 23, 253-260.

Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., & O’Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback: All that effort, but what is the effect?. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 277-289. Retrieved from

Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scale. Section I: General overview. Oxford, UK: Oxford Psychologists Press.

Sim-Sim, I. (1997). Avaliação da linguagem oral: Um contributo para o conhecimento do descobrimento linguístico das crianças portuguesas. Textos de Educação. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.

Silva, A. C. (2013). The impact of revision in the quality of written compositions of 4th grade children. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 26, 177-183. doi: 10.1590/S0102-79722013000100019

Silva, C., Almeida, T., & Farroupas, S. (2016). The impact of revision and feedback on the quality of children’s written compositions. International Journal of Social Sciences and Educational Studies, 3(2), 26-42. doi: 10.23918/ijsses.v3i2p26

Schamber, J. F., & Mahoney, S. L. (2006). Assessing and improving the quality of group critical thinking exhibited in the final projects of collaborative learning groups. The Journal of General Education, 55, 103-137.

Wellington, J. (2010). More than a matter of cognition: An exploration of affective writing problems of post-graduate students and their possible solutions. Teaching in Higher Education, 15, 135-150. doi: 10.1080/13562511003619961

Wong, B., & Berninger, V. (2004). Cognitive processes of teachers in implementing composition research in elementary, middle and high school classrooms. In A. Stone, E. Siliman, B. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 600-623). New York: The Gilford Press.

Yan, C. M. W., McBride-Chang, C., Wagner, R. K., Zhang, J., Wong, A. M. Y., & Shu, H. (2012). Writing quality in Chinese children: Speed and fluency matter. Reading and Writing, 25, 1499-1521.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An analysis of exemplary instructional models. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice (pp. 1-19). New York, NY, US: Guilford Publications.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation. A social cognitive perspective. In M. Broekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidnre (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-29). New York: Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7

Zimmerman, B. J., & Pons, M. M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 614-628.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Nº ERC: 107494 | ISSN (in print): 0870-8231 | ISSN (online): 1646-6020 | Copyright © ISPA - CRL, 2012 | Rua Jardim do Tabaco, 34, 1149-041 Lisboa | NIF: 501313672 | The portal and metadata are licensed under the license Creative Commons CC BY-NC