27 SES 01 B, Learning and Creativity
The act of writing is an ability that requires the activation of self-regulation strategies and cognitive processes. Also, we need to use grammar skills related with knowledge about text genres to writing a composition (Graham & Harris, 2000, Hayes, 1996). Sometimes, students have to write about text genres or themes that they do not know or do not remember (Cho, 2003). In addition, if students have little time to write a text, they will have problems to do it (Polio y Glew, 1996; Powers y Fowles, 1996). Both aspects, knowledge about genres and time used to write a composition, affect to text quality. For these reason, we chose a narrative genre. This type of text is easy to be written, because it is related to writer's previous knowledge (Graesser y cols. 1994). The narrative texts have an episodic structure that facilitates the inferencial activity unlike other texts (Singer, Harkness y Stewart, 1997).
About text quality, teachers often pay attention to orthographic criteria when they assess written production. Also, they revise others criteria related to the sentences and correct use of vocabulary (Matsumura, Patthey-Chavez, Valdés y Garnier, 2002). According to Cassany (1999), teachers not only have to pay attention to graphic aspects; they have to assess others aspects like vocabulary (adequacy and variety), grammar (agreement, proper use of anaphora and connectors) and structure of the text (Morales, 2004). However, there is not agreement about the number of assessment criteria to evaluate adequately a text. The important is that assessment give information about which aspects could be improved by students. Moreover, the assessment criteria are dependents on the aspects required by the type of text.
Creative or expressive texts need different assessment criteria if we compare with others texts, as compositions used to verify the knowledge of a subject (Morales, 2004). There are tools and tests that can be used by teachers to assess a narrative essay, as the PROESC (Cuetos, Ruano y Ramos, 2002). This battery allows assess spelling rules, phoneme-grapheme conversion, punctuation and planning narrations. The PROESC has two criteria to assess the introduction of a story (when and where, and characters). In this way, we have to pay attention to the place of the story, the time and the description of the characters. These aspects formed the introduction of a narrative text (Thorndyke, 1977). Also, various studies have documented the criteria that we have to assess when we evaluate a narrative text. Benítez (2008) drafted a rubric for assessing a narration's theme, characters (variety, description...), the story's context (time, place...), plot (clarity and structure of chapters), and other linguistic aspects (grammar, spelling, vocabulary...). Ochoa-Angrino, Aragón, Correa, and Mosquera (2008) tested a planning and evaluation system for writing stories in two stages, individually and jointly. In the case of individual correction, it was found that the children focused on superficial features related to grammar and spelling; however, in joint correction, the students were able to pick up on errors linked to deep content and text coherence.
In this theoretical framework, the assessment in narrative texts have been widely documented in Primary Education stage, we have less evidence in the University level. So, the main objective of the present research is to gain information on the quality of introduction in creative texts elaborated by University students. Additionally, we want to know if differences exist in the quality of introduction in creative texts depending on the educational level of the writers (University, Primary Schools).
Benítez, R. (2008). La evaluación de las narraciones escritas: una perspectiva holística focalizada. Enunciación, 13, 28-37. Cassany, D. (1999). Construir la escritura. Barcelona: Paidós. Cho, Y. (2003). Assessing writing: Are we bound by only one method? Assessing Writing, 8, 165-191. Cuetos, F., Ramos, J.L. & Ruano, E. (2002). PROESC: Batería de evaluación de los procesos de escritura. Madrid: TEA Ediciones. Graesser, A.C., Singer, M. y Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences durin narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101 (3), 371-395. Graham, S. & Harris, K. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psycologist, 35 (1), 3-12. Hayes, J. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. En C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.). The science of writing. Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Matsumura, L.C., Patthey-Chavez, G.G., Valdés, R. y Garnier, H. (2002). Teacher feedback, writing assignment quality, and tirad-grade students’ revision in lower-and higher-achieving urban schools. The Elementary School Journal, 103(1), 3-25. Morales, F. (2004). Evaluar la escritura, sí…Pero ¿Qué y cómo evaluar?. Acción Pedagógica, 13 (1), 38-48. Ochoa-Angrino, S., Aragón, L., Correa, M. & Mosquera, S. (2008). Funcionamiento metacognitivo de niños escolares en la escritura de un texto narrativo antes y después de una pauta de corrección conjunta [Versión electrónica], Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 11 (2), 77-88. Polio, C., & Glew, M. (1996). ESL writing assessment prompts: How students choose. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5 (1), 35–49. Powers, D. E., & Fowles, M. E. (1996). Effects of applying different time limits to a proposed writing test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33 (4), 433–452. Singer, M., Harkness, D., & Stewart, S. T. (1997). Constructing inferences in expository text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 24, 199-228. Thorndyke, P. W. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 77-110. Gratitude: Thanks to the Regional Government of Extremadura (Spain) and European Social Fund (reference of funding received PD12129).
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.