Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Writing intervention with elementary students struggling with writing: examining approach profiles to the teacher feedback on writing quality and motivational variables

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many young students experience difficulties mastering writing, and are designated as students struggling with writing. Teacher feedback on writing is an educational tool suited to address this challenge, playing a pivotal role in promoting student proficiency in writing. The current study tests a writing intervention plus teacher feedback, over the course of 12 weeks. A quasi-experimental design with repeated measures was designed to test it. Aims were twofold: (a) identify emerging approach profiles of students struggling with writing to teacher feedback (i.e., perception and reported use of the feedback provided by a teacher), and (b) examine the extent to which different emerging feedback approach profiles are related to the writing quality of students’ compositions and motivational variables (i.e., self-regulation in writing and attitude towards writing). Forty-five students in Grade 3, identified as students struggling with writing, participated in this study. Using a cluster analysis, three profiles were identified as follows: low, medium and high feedback approach profile. Findings showed that the majority of students were able to use the feedback provided by their teacher, perceiving it as useful in improving their writing compositions. Independent of the feedback approach profile, all students evidenced enhanced writing quality during the intervention. Regarding self-regulation in writing and attitude towards writing, no statistically significant differences were found over the intervention. Implications of teacher feedback on writing of students struggling with writing are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
€32.70 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Finland)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Altstaedter, L. L., & Doolittle, P. (2014). Students’ perceptions of peer feedback. Argentinian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 60–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, C. A., Truckenmiller, A. J., & Eckert, T. L. (2020). Performance feedback during writing instruction: A cost-effectiveness analysis. School Psychology, 35(3), 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braeken, J., & van Assen, M. A. L. M. (2017). An empirical Kaiser criterion. Psychological Methods, 22(3), 450–466. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. ASCD.

  • Brunstein, J. C., & Glaser, C. (2011). Testing a path-analytic mediation model of how self-regulated writing strategies improve fourth graders’ composition skills: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 922–938. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnett, P. C., & Mandel, V. (2010). Praise and feedback in the primary classroom: Teachers’ and students’ perspectives. Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 10, 145–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D., & Winne, P. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cetinkaya, G. (2015). Examining characteristics of teacher feedback in organizing written texts. International Journal0 Social Science and Education, 5(2), 322–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiang, K. K. (2004). An investigation into students’ preferences for and responses to teacher feedback and its implications for writing teachers. Hong Kong Teachers’ Centre Journal, 3(1), 98–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunha, J., Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Martins, J., & Högemann, J. (2019). Does teacher homework feedback matter to 6th graders’ school engagement?: A mixed methods study. Metacognition and Learning, 14(2), 89–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-019-09200-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahling, J. J., & Ruppel, C. L. (2016). Learning goal orientation buffers the effects of negative normative feedback on test self-efficacy and reattempt interest. Learning and individual Differences, 50, 296–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duijnhouwer, H., Prins, F. J., & Stokking, K. M. (2012). Feedback providing improvement strategies and reflection on feedback use: Effects on students’ writing motivation, process, and performance. Learning and Instruction, 22(3), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33–53. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festas, I., Oliveira, A. L., Rebelo, J. A., Damião, M. H., Harris, K., & Graham, S. (2015). Professional development in self- regulated strategy development: Effects on the writing performance of eighth grade Portuguese students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.05.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fidalgo, R., Torrance, M., & Robledo, P. (2011). Comparación de dos programas de instrucción estratégica y autorregulada para la mejora de la competencia escrita [comparison of two self-regulated and strategic instructional programs for improving writing competence]. Psicothema, 23(4), 672–680.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, J. (2013). Constructing instruction for struggling writers: What and how. Annals of Dyslexia, 63, 80–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabinete de Avaliação Educacional [Office of Educational Evaluation] (2012). Provas de aferição 1.° ciclo – Língua Portuguesa [2.nd cycle exams- Portuguese Language]. Lisboa: Ministério da Educação.

  • Gamlem, S. M., & Smith, K. (2013). Student perceptions of classroom feedback. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 20(2), 150–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2012.749212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, J. N., & Fuertes, A. M. (2002). Es posible mejorar la composición en alumnos con dificultades de aprendizaje y/o bajo rendimiento sin que cambie la reflexividade hacia la escritura? [Is it possible to improve writing composition in learning disabilities (LD) and/or low achievement (LA) students without changes in reflexivity toward writing?]. Psicothema, 14(2), 456–462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, C., & Brunstein, J. C. (2007). Improving fourth-grade students’ composition skills: Effects of strategy instruction and self-regulation procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez, R., Parker, R., Lara-Alecio, R., & Gomez, L. (1996). Process versus product writing with limited English proficient students. Bilingual Research Journal, 20, 209–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, W., Lau, K. L., & Wei, J. (2019). Teacher feedback and students’ self-regulated learning in mathematics: A comparison between a high-achieving and a low-achieving secondary schools. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 63, 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.07.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. (2008). Research on writing development, practice, instruction, and assessment. Reading and Writing, 21, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9069-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. (2018a). Instructional Feedback in Writing. In A. Lipnevich & J. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback (Cambridge handbooks in psychology. (pp. 145–168). Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S. (2018b). A revised writer (s)-within-community model of writing. Educational Psychologist, 53(4), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1481406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools. . Carnegie Corporation of New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Berninger, V., & Fan, W. (2007). The structural relationship between writing attitude and writing achievement in first and third grade students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 516–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(2), 207–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.08.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Harris, K. R., Fink, B., & MacArthur, C. (2002). Primary grade teachers’ theoretical orientations concerning writing instruction: Construct validation and a nationwide survey. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 147–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., Hebert, M., & Harris, K. (2015). Formative assessment and writing: A meta-analysis. The Elementary School Journal, 115(4), 523–547. https://doi.org/10.1086/681947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 879–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. E., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1999). Multivariate data analysis. (6th ed.). Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handley, K., Price, M., & Millar, J. (2011). Beyond ‘doing time’: investigating the concept of student engagement with feedback. Oxford Review of Education, 37(4), 543–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2011.604951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harks, B., Rakoczy, K., Hattie, J., Besser, M., & Klieme, E. (2014). The effects of feedback on achievement, interest and self-evaluation: the role of feedback`s perceived usefulness. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 34, 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.785384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2009). Self-regulated strategy development in writing: Premises, evolution, and the future. British Journal of Educational Psychology (Monograph), 6, 113–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. (2003). Self-regulated strategy development in the classroom: Part of a balanced approach to writing instruction for students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 35, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. (2006). Improving the writing, knowledge, and motivation of struggling young writers: Effects of self-regulated strategy development with and without peer support. American Educational Research Journal., 43(2), 295–340. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043002295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J.A.C., & Gan. M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In R. Mayer & P. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction. (pp. 249–271). Routledge.

  • Högemann, J., Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Rodríguez, C., & Valle, A. (2017). Promoting self- regulatory skills in writing using a story-tool. In R. Fidalgo, K. Harris, & M. Braaksma (Eds.), E-book: Design principles for teaching effective writing. Netherlands: Brill Editions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, K. (2017). Exploring student perceptions of verbal feedback. Research Papers in Education, 32(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2017.1319589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleij, F. M. (2019). Comparison of teacher and student perceptions of formative assessment feedback practices and association with individual student characteristics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 85, 175-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.06.010

  • Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 144–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lienemann, T., Graham, S., Leader-Janssen, B., & Reid, R. (2006). Improving the writing performance of struggling writers in second grade. The Journal of Special Education, 40(2), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669060400020301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Limpo, T., & Alves, R. A. (2013). Modeling writing development: Contribution of transcription and self-regulation to Portuguese students’ text generation quality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipnevich, A., & Smith, J. (2009). Effects of differential feedback on students’ examination performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15(4), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marrs, S., Zumbrunn, S., McBride, C., & Stringer, J. K. (2016). Exploring elementary student perceptions of writing feedback. Journal on Educational Psychology, 10(1), 16–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministério da Educação e da Ciência. Processo de avaliação externa da aprendizagem–provas finais de ciclo e exames nacionais 2013. [Ministry of Education and Science Learning External Assessment Process–final grade exams and national exams in 2013] (2013). http://www.dgidc.min.edu.pt/ jurinacionalexames/index.php?s=directorio&pid=21

  • Núñez, J. C., Rosário, P., Vallejo, G., & González-Pienda, J. A. (2013). A longitudinal assessment of the effectiveness of a school-based mentoring program in middle school. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.10.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parr, J. M., & Timperley, H. S. (2010). Feedback to writing, assessment for teaching and learning and student progress. Assessing Writing, 15(2), 68–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2010.05.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, E., & Irving, S. (2008). Secondary school students’ conceptions of assessment and feedback. Learning and Instruction, 18, 238–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinger, P., Rakoczy, K., Besser, M., & Klieme, E. (2016). Implementation of formative assessment–effects of quality of programme delivery on students’ mathematics achievement and interest. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2016.1170665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rakoczy, K., Harks, B., Klieme, E., Blum, W., & Hochweber, J. (2013). Written feedback in mathematics: Mediated by students` perception, moderated by goal orientation. Learning and Instruction, 27, 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.03.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosário P., Núñez, J.C., & González-Pienda, J.A (2007). Auto-regulação em crianças sub 10: Projecto sarilhos do amarelo [Self-regulation in children under 10: Yellow’s trials and tribulations]. Porto Editora.

  • Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Rodríguez, C., Cerezo, R., Fernández, E., Tuero, E., & Högemann, J. (2017). Analysis of instructional programs for improving self-regulated learning SRL through written text. In R. Fidalgo, K. Harris, & M. Braasksma (Eds.), Design principles for teaching effective writing. Brill Editions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Cunha, J., Azevedo, R., Pereira, R., Nunes, A. R., Fuentes, S., & Moreira, T. (2016). Promoting Gypsy children school engagement: A story-tool project to enhance self-regulated learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 47, 84–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.11.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosário, P., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Cunha, J., Nunes, T., Suárez, N., Fuentes, S., & Moreira, T. (2015). The effects of teachers’ homework follow-up practices on students’ EFL performance: A randomized-group design. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosário, P., Högemann, J., Núñez, J. C., Vallejo, G., Cunha, J., Rodríguez, C., & Fuentes, S. (2019). The impact of three types of writing intervention on students’ writing quality. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saddler, B., Moran, S., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2004). Preventing writing difficulties: The effects of planning strategy instruction on the writing performance of struggling writers. Exceptionality, 12(1), 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327035ex1201_2

  • Schirmer, B. R., & Bailey, J. (2000). Writing assessment rubric: An instructional approach with struggling writers. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(1), 52–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990003300110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin, J., Lee, Y. K., & Seo, E. (2017). The effects of feedback on students’ achievement goals: Interaction between reference of comparison and regulatory focus. Learning and Instruction, 49, 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.11.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siewert, L. (2011). The effects of written teacher feedback on the academic achievement of fifth-grade students with learning challenges. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 55(1), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10459880903286771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stroet, K., Opdenakker, M. C., & Minnaert, A. (2013). Effects of need supportive teaching on early adolescents’ motivation and engagement: A review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 9, 65–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.11.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, S., Pan, W., & Wang, L. L. (2010). A comprehensive review of effect size reporting and interpreting practices in academic journals in education and psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 989–1004. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Education Endowment Foundation [EEF]. (2014). Improving writing quality. Retrieved from https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/uploads/pdf/EEF_Evaluation_Report_-_Improving_Writing_Quality_-_May_2014.pdf

  • Troia, G. A. (2006). Writing instruction for students with learning disabilities. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research. (pp. 324–336). Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017). Supporting learners’ agentic engagement with feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wollenschläger, M., Hattie, J., Machts, N., Möller, J., & Harms, U. (2016). What makes rubrics effective in teacher-feedback? Transparency of learning goals is not enough. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44–45, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.11.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, M., & Carless, D. (2013). The feedback triangle and the enhancement of dialogic feedback processes. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.719154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, J., & Mok, M. M. C. (2018). Predicting primary students’ self-regulated learning by their prior achievement, interest, personal best goal orientation and teacher feedback. Educational Psychology, 38(9), 1106–1128. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1497775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B., & Reisemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zumbrunn, S., Marrs, S., & Mewborn, C. (2016). Toward a better understanding of student perceptions of writing feedback: A mixed methods study. Reading and Writing, 29(2), 349–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9599-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Julia Högemann and Jennifer Cunha contributed equally to this work and should be cited as co-first authors

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Applied Psychology, Escola de Psicologia, Universidade do Minho, 4710-052, Gualtar - Braga, Portugal

    Julia Högemann, Jennifer Cunha & Pedro Rosário

  2. Department of Psychology, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de Oviedo, Plaza Feijoo, s/n, 33003, Oviedo, Spain

    José Carlos Núñez, Guillermo Vallejo & Celestino Rodríguez

Authors
  1. Julia Högemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer Cunha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. José Carlos Núñez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Guillermo Vallejo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Celestino Rodríguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Pedro Rosário
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pedro Rosário.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix 1 Example of the coding scheme for two topics of the composition assessment
Full size table
Appendix 2
figure 5

Example of a filled in Feedback Tool

Full size image
Appendix 3 Feedback Scales
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Högemann, J., Cunha, J., Núñez, J.C. et al. Writing intervention with elementary students struggling with writing: examining approach profiles to the teacher feedback on writing quality and motivational variables. Read Writ 34, 1681–1710 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10159-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10159-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation