The written production has received limited attention in research works in comparison with reading comprehension. Despite the progress in the study of the cognitive processes involved in writing, there are few techniques of evaluation of this skill (Cuetos, Ramos & Ruano, 2002). In this context, we wonder: How do primary school teachers’ assess texts? Which criteria do their corrections affect to? What kind of review (deep or shallow) does the teachers’ feedback drive? This research aims to answer these questions. Below, we show the main backgrounds that contextualize the present study.

The relevance of written production

The production of texts is a basic skill for the stages of Primary (article 6 of R.D. 1513/2006, 7^th December) and Secondary Education (article 7 of R.D. 1631/2006, 29^th December) in Spanish educational system. This way, this skill is considered to be as a purpose and an objective (Organic Law of Education, 2006). In addition, it must be worked in a transverse way in all areas of Primary education. Schools are required to spend time every day to write texts due to the psychological and physiological benefits that the writing processes involve (Smyth, 1998). Also, text production allows to achieve learning objectives. So, we believe that it is a relevance skill.

On the other hand, there are different approaches to explain how the writing process takes place (Graham, Gillespie & Mckeown, 2013). According to the explanatory theory of cognitive approach most accepted (Flower & Hayes, 1981), which is integrated by other researchers (Bereiter & Sacardamalia, 1987), a series of mental processes and affective-motivational operations interact in the written production. Those operations need a process of construction of knowledge because they take place simultaneously.

Texts assessment

In the literature about writing, we observe that students realize a text review in two levels (Graham, Mac Arthur, & Schwartz, 1995; Hayes, Flower, Schriver, Stratman, & Carey, 1987): shallow (formal aspects: orthography and grammar) and deep (content aspects: transformation of words, phrases and paragraphs).

In the previously mentioned approaches, the texts editing processes are considered cognitive operations of writing. Even more, the authors say that the skills of planning and review constitute a fundamental part of the writing ability (Piolat, 1991). These two metacognitive skills improve the text structure by means of the achieved self-regulation (Chen, Wei, Wu & Uden, 2009; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2007). This way, there are some instruments that promote self-assessment: rubrics (Jonsson & Svingby, 2007), scripts, prompts and cues (Alonso-Tapia & Panadero, 2010; Bannert, 2009).

Objectives

The present work aims to analyze the assessment of the text generated by the teachers of Primary Education. To this purpose, task review of narrations is applied. This research focuses in two main aspects: a) the impact of teacher feedback in a text review, b) aspects which have changed after review. The obtained results serve as basis to develop a tool for assess the creative writing. Besides, this tool could contribute to their comprehension because of the close link between skills, comprehension and writing (Graham & Hebert, 2011).

Alonso-Tapia, J., & Panadero, E. (2010). Effect of self-assessment scripts on self-regulation and learning. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 33(3), 385-397. Bannert, M. (2009). Promoting self-regulated learning through prompts. Zeitschrift Fur Padagogische Psychologie, 23(2), 139-145. Chen, N. S., Wei, C. W., Wu, K. T., & Uden, L. (2009). Effects of high level prompts and peer assessment on online learners’ reflection levels. Computers & Education, 52, 283–291. Cuetos, F., Ramos, J.L. & Ruano, E. (2002). PROESC: Batería de evaluación de los procesos de escritura. Madrid: TEA Ediciones. Flower, L. & Hayes J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32 (4), 365-387. Graham, S. & Hebert, M. (2011). Writing-to-read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing instruction on reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81, 710–744. Graham, S. Gillespie, A. & Mckeown, D. (2013). Writing: importance, development, and instruction. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26 (1), 1-15. Graham, S., Mac Arthur, C. & Schwartz, S. (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 (2), 230-240. Hayes, J. R., Flower, L., Schriver, K., Stratman, J., & Carey, L. (1987). Cognitive processes in revision. En S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Reading, writing, and language learning. Advances in applied psycholinguistics, (Vol. 2, pp. 176-240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jonsson A. & Svingby, G. (2007). The Use Of Scoring Rubrics: Reliability, Validity And Educational Consequences, Educational Research Review 2 (2007) 130–144 Piolat, A. (1991). Effect of Word processing on text revision. Language and Education, 5, 255-272. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23, 7-25.