Learning to write is key to successfully going through elementary education. Considerable progress in children’s writing is documented in the intermediate school grades, due to lexical and cognitive development. In line with this postulate, the goal of the study was to analyse the predictive value of attention, perception, planning, working memory and long-term memory in written expression tasks in Argentine schoolchildren. One hundred and sixty-eight boys and girls participated, between 8 and 11 years of age, who were in 3rd, 4th and 5th grade of Elementary Education. A regression analysis revealed that visuospatial perception, working memory, long-term memory, and planning may predict writing performance in children. Working memory denoted a high predictive value, along with long-term memory and visuospatial perception. The findings provide evidence about the involvement of cognitive and executive processes in written expression tasks in Spanish-speaking schoolchildren. Identifying cognitive predictors of writing skills makes it possible to design more comprehensive teaching programs that jointly contemplate training in specific writing skills and strengthening the cognitive resources of learners.
Article Details
How to Cite
Moreno, C.-B., Korzeniowski, C., & Espósito, A. . (2022). Cognitive and executive processes associated with children’s writing. Ocnos. Journal of reading research, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_2022.21.2.2839
Moreno, Korzeniowski, and Espósito: Cognitive and executive processes associated with children’s writing
Introduction
Writing is a distinctive human activity and has geared social and scientific progress.
Writing is a central aspect of formal education and is critical to success in school
and everyday life.
In the last years, in Latin America, there has been a decline in writing skills, and
more particularly, in terms of text production. According to reports, about 50% of
elementary schoolchildren perform poorly when constructing meaning in a written text
(), and about 30% lack skills in using linguistic conventions ().
Similar percentages have been reported in other Latin American countries. Elementary
schoolchildren are below the world average in knowledge of the spelling code, in textualization,
planning and text revision (; ).
For this reason, research aimed at exploring writing skills in Latin American schoolchildren
is needed. Studies are still insufficient in comparison to the number of existing
studies on reading. This is due to the methodological complexity involved in studying
writing procedures (), which derives from the cognitive functions involved in the writing process.
Writing as cognitive processing
In cognitive models, writing is conceptualized as an activity involving planning,
transcription, and revision (). Planning implies generating previous schemes, establishing the goals of the text
and its organization. Transcription involves translating those ideas into written
text. In the transcription phase, motor, lexical, syntactic, and semantic aspects
are involved. Revision implies rereading and rewriting what is written, identifying
and correcting errors to adjust the text ().
Transcription has been widely studied (; ;) among those processes. Some studies have focused on spelling, handwriting, and on
phoneme-grapheme connections (). Other studies have analysed the genesis of the text and more complex discursive
structures (; ). They all provide evidence of handwriting and spelling, as skills that are later
automated, enabling more complex writing skills.
Transcription skills are acquired in the early school grades. A study by conducted in second grade children showed that transcription skills predict text
quality. Another study () found that transcription continues to be important throughout the learning process,
conditioning written production.
Writing proficiency can be improved in higher school grades (). If transcription is automated, cognitive resources are freed, enabling other more
complex processes such as planning and revision to improve text production and quality
().
Visuospatial perception
The ability to discriminate visual stimuli is essential in transcription and in the
motor process of handwriting. It is a low-order process, due to its degree of automation,
but it is important because learning to write requires visual and auditory perceptual
maturity ().
Studies have revealed that the written trace, that is, the visual permanence of the
text already written, reduces the demand on high-level cognitive resources because
it acts as an external auxiliary memory and facilitates revision process, in the most
competent writers (). In beginner writers, error detection relies on verbal processing, while proficient
writers use visual search to identify morphological coherence in their texts ().
Attention
Attention is a complex multimodal process (). Its function is to direct cognitive effort, operating as a filter that selects
the most pertinent information (). In addition, it is an indicator of performance in tasks that require a high level
of cognitive control (). In writing, it plays a central role in allowing the selection of relevant stimuli,
inhibiting distractors, and sustaining cognitive effort.
Long-term memory
Text production involves retrieving knowledge stored in long-term memory, such as
specific information about the topic to be written, vocabulary, and lexical, syntactic,
and grammatical structures (). Retrieving of this knowledge will be relevant in the course of thought and in expressive
fluency and will allow the organization of words and phrases, integrating their semantic
components to produce a coherent and articulated text (; ).
Executive functions
Writing a text is a problem-solving activity that calls upon higher order cognitive
resources, such as executive functions (EF), in order to plan, organize ideas, correct
errors and monitor the process ().
EF are essential processes to organize and self-regulate thought, behaviour, and emotions
(). They maintain a hierarchical relationship with the rest of cognitive processes,
regulating them to solve novel and complex situations ().
There is a consensus in the scientific literature that identifies three essential
EFs: inhibitory control, working memory and cognitive flexibility, on which other
more complex ones such as planning, organization and metacognition are built (Miyake
et al., 2001). Inhibitory control allows suppressing inappropriate behaviour and resisting
the interference of distracting stimuli. Working memory keeps information online and
operates on it. Cognitive flexibility allows one to change the perspective on a task
and adjust responses to new requirements (; ; ). Among the complex EFs, planning makes it possible to identify a goal, organise
the sequence of steps to achieve it, anticipate consequences and review the mental
map to direct action ().
Various studies have reported that EF are central to regulating writing. A study of
3rd and 4th grade children documented that inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, and working
memory predicted performance on storytelling tasks (). Another study focused on the contribution of inhibitory control and planning in
note-taking tasks ().
Working memory is key to writing a text. Research studies provide substantial evidence
on its implication in the production of narratives in childhood (; ).
During writing, working memory manipulates and keeps linguistic symbols online. The
phonological loop admits and retains verbal information for short periods of time
and performs a review that allows representations to be preserved. While the articulatory
review takes place, allowing the execution of verbal tasks, the phonological representation
in long-term memory reconstructs words and phonological traces that have declined
().
In this sense, children improve speech production as working memory becomes more efficient
(). Likewise, children who are more competent in working memory achieve better performance
in the spelling and pragmatic components of the text ().
Despite this evidence, there is still not enough knowledge about the relationship
and effects of EF on writing skills in Argentine children.
In short, multiple cognitive processes shape the writing process and contribute to
it in specific ways. These findings allow researchers to identify cognitive predictors
of writing to be considered as new variables in the design of writing teaching programs.
Elementary education is crucial when it comes to learning to write. In the intermediate
school years, great progress can be observed in the writing skills of children, who
begin to automate transcription and develop planning and revision skills. Gains in
cognitive development make these advances possible, and thus the middle grades are
an optimal time to study the interrelationships of cognitive functions and writing
tasks.
In line with this postulate, the goals of this study were: 1) to evaluate written
expression in children from 3rd to 5th grade of elementary education, through sentence
production and writing fluency tasks; 2) to describe the cognitive performance of
children in attention, visuospatial perception, working memory, planning and long-term
memory; and 3) to study the predictive value of children attentional efficacy, visuospatial
perception, long-term memory, planning and working memory on their written expression
skills.
Based on the body of research reviewed, the proposed hypothesis postulates that children’s
ability to produce written texts is linked to cognitive and executive processing.
Method
Participants
Participants were 168 children (boys = 84 and girls = 84) between 8 and 11 years of
age (X = 9.65, SD = .90) from two elementary schools in Mendoza. The schools are urban, and their population
belongs to a medium and medium-low socioeconomic level (Dirección General de Escuelas,
[).
The sample was made up by three 3rd grade courses (n = 56), three 4th grade courses
(n = 59), and three 5th grade courses (n = 53).
Participants who met the conditions of age, schooling and absence of specific language,
attention or other cognitive disorders were selected. All the participants were Argentine
Spanish speakers.
The curricular design for writing instruction addresses different aspects in each
grade (). The goal for third grade is the writing of words without omitting any letters and
incorporating conventional spelling. Writing texts using planning strategies and progressive
development of revision is expected. In fourth grade, cohesion, narrative components,
and the incorporation of other text types are emphasized. In fifth grade, the focus
is on consolidating coherence, cohesion, the semantic classification of words and
the syntactic structure of sentences.
Instruments
Writing measures
Woodcock-Muñoz Battery III sub-tests
a)
Writing Samples Test (WS): this test evaluates the ability to write sentences in response
to different demands. It consists of 30 items of increasing difficulty, containing
stimuli (e. g., images, a set of words or an incomplete paragraph) from which one
or more sentences must be written. The starting point depends on the student’s grade
level. If they are adults, the last items are completed. A score of 2, 1 or 0 points
is awarded, according to the criteria for each item, and the total possible score
is 60 points. Some spelling errors (e. g., accents or capital letters) are not penalized,
but the omission of letters or other spelling errors (e. g., g/j, ll/y) are. In the
items of intermediate complexity, the syntactic structure (e. g., presence of verb
and subject and adaptation to the stimulus) are considered. In the more difficult
items, criteria of coherence, cohesion and quality of the text are considered ().
b)
Writing Fluency Test (WF): it assesses the ability to write sentences quickly. It
contains 40 items, arranged in increasing order of complexity. Each item shows an
image and a set of three words from which a sentence must be written that is related
to the image and contains the three words. There is a period of 7 minutes to complete
the largest number of items. The rating is done by awarding 0 or 1 point. The answer
is considered correct when the sentences are complete, clear, and coherent. Spelling
errors, such as the absence of accents or omission of capital letters, are not penalized,
while omissions or substitution of letters and the absence of any of the words of
the stimulus are ().
The assessment of these writing tests was carried out by members of the research team
with training in writing models and experience in applying instruments that evaluate
children’s writing skills.
Additionally, both writing tests make it possible to form a cluster for the measurement
of competence in Written Expression (WE) in terms of production fluency and writing
quality.
Measurement of cognitive and executive processes
Magellan Scale of Visual Attention (EMAV): this test evaluates focused and sustained attention by assessing attentional efficacy.
It is a cross-out test in which a visual search must be carried out according to a
model stimulus (). It presents two versions: EMAV-1 for 6- to 9-year-olds, and EMAV-2 for 10-year-olds
and older. This instrument has been standardized for Argentine schoolchildren (Carrada
& Ison, 2013), with satisfactory internal consistency (rho = 0.89, n = 5779) and adequate convergence and discrimination validity (r = .80, p <.01).
Porteus Labyrinth Test (PLT): it evaluates planning skills () in subjects from 3 to 80 years of age. It consists of 10 mazes of increasing difficulty.
The path from the entrance to the exit of the maze must be traced with a pencil, without
previous rehearsal with the pencil or the hand, and without lifting the pencil. The
evaluation according to the Porteus Quality Index (PQI) designed by Marino and colleagues
(2001) offers a measure of planning skill. The PQI includes hits and misses, awarding
one point for each maze completed. The final score ranges from 0 to 10 points. The
internal consistency of the test for Argentine schoolchildren () obtained a moderately high index (= 0.80).
Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (ROCF): this test assesses visuoperceptual organization, that is, visuospatial and visuomotor
skills, in a graphic execution task. The test has a copy phase and a memory phase.
The stimulus, which is copied and then reproduced from memory, is a geometric drawing
made up of 18 constituent elements. It has specific characteristics, such as the absence
of a manifest meaning, low graphic complexity, and a sufficiently complex structure
to require an analytical and organizing activity. The quality, precision and localization
of the copy are valued (). In our research, the criteria provided by a study carried out on Argentine children
() were used. It has three scoring criteria: a) precision that can be correct, deformed,
incomplete or absent; b) location, according to the location with respect to the model;
c) number of elements according to the number of units made.
Auditory Working Memory Test, Battery III Woodcock – Muñoz: It measures the phonological loop of working memory, as indicated by the recoding
of acoustic stimuli held in immediate awareness. A series of digits mixed with words
is heard and that information needs to be divided, reordered, and repeated in new
sequences. The rating ranges from 0 to 42 points. The reliability is 0.80 for subjects
aged 5 to 19 and 0.84 for adult subjects ().
Recovery Fluidity Test, Battery III Woodcock – Muñoz: it evaluates recovery of accumulated knowledge and ideational fluency. It is a measure
of long-term memory. It requires the retrieval and oral production of examples of
a semantic category in one minute. In each category, subjects are requested to name
foods, animals, and people. The score for each block ranges from 0 to 60 points and
the total score ranges from 0 to 180 points. Test reliability is 0.83 for 5- to 19-year-olds
and 0.91 for adults ().
Procedure
The procedure was developed following the ethical standards for psychological studies
with children (). To include the participants, the informed consent of their parents or guardians
was required, and the children’s agreement to participate was requested.
The tests were administered between August and October (spring), during school hours.
Those tests that admitted a group application were carried out in the classroom with
the help of a teacher. The individual application tests were administered in a separate
room under adequate conditions for these tasks, which require greater execution control.
Data Analysis
The data was analysed with the SPSS-IBM software, version 25. The normality criteria
of the variables were analysed to establish their distribution parameters and then
descriptive analyses were performed. Univariate analyses of variance were performed
to assess the variability of writing performance in each school grade. A study of
correlations between the cognitive and writing variables was carried out, using the
Pearson and Spearman coefficients, according to the normality of the variables.
Finally, a hierarchical stepwise linear regression study was performed to explore
the predictive value of cognitive and executive variables over writing variables.
Results
Descriptive study
The Shapiro-Wilk test revealed that most of the variables presented a normal distribution.
Table 1 reports the descriptive measures of writing and cognitive variables.
n=168
Mean
Median
DS
Min.
Max.
Asymmetry
Kurtosis
Shapiro-Wilk W
SW p
Writing
WS
19.14
19.14
5.69
2.00
33.50
-0.14
0.13
0.99
0.827
WF
9.63
10.0
5.24
0.00
25.00
-0.00
-0.57
0.97
0.009
WE
0.00
0.00
0.81
-2.40
2.13
-0.06
0.05
0.99
0.971
Cognitive
Attention
0.40
0.40
0.17
-0.01
0.87
0.07
0.55
0.97
0.008
VP
48.10
48.81
10.22
20.5
72.0
-0.28
-0.41
0.98
0.115
Planning
6.16
6.50
1.79
1.50
9.00
-0.52
-0.44
0.96
<.001
WM
16.74
17.00
5.35
2.00
29.00
-0.27
-0.09
0.98
0.077
LTM
43.17
42.00
12.03
10.00
81.00
0.39
0.64
0.98
0.048
Table 1Descriptive Statistics and Normality for Writing Variables and Cognitive Variables
Children’s writing performance was explored. The raw scores of Writing Samples and
Writing Fluency are presented. Standardized scores of Writing Samples and Writing
Fluency were used to form the Written Expression cluster. This cluster is suitable
for exploring writing competence because it takes into account structured writing
ability and ideational fluency (). As there were no standardization norms for the instruments, intra-sample distribution
was used, identifying children with low and high performance.
Table 2 presents the 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles of each writing test by school grade.
It is observed that the values vary as the children advance in schooling, which shows
the effect of schooling on writing competence.
Tirth Grade (n=56)
Fourth Grade (n=59)
Fifth Grade (n=53)
M(DS)
Percentiles
M(DS)
Percentiles
M(DS)
Percentiles
25
50
75
25
50
75
25
50
75
Writing
WS
19.78(5.44)
16.75
20.00
22.50
17.87 (5.46)
14.00
17.00
21.00
19.88 (6.03)
16.00
19.50
24.00
WF
7.05 (4.86)
3.25
6.00
11.00
10.20 (4.84)
6.00
11.00
14.00
11.70 (5.01)
8.50
12.00
15.00
WE
-0.18 (0.81)
-0.81
-0.16
0.38
-0.04 (0.77)
-0.38
-0.10
0.38
0.25(0.82)
-0.45
0.29
1.00
Cognitive
Attention
0.41(0.19)
0.30
0.40
0.55
0.44(0.18)
0.32
0.42
0.55
0.35 (0.13)
0.27
0.34
0.42
Planning
5.44(1.87)
3.81
6.00
7.00
6.56(1.59)
5.50
6.75
7.75
6.45 (1.71)
5.25
6.75
7.87
VP
45.64 (9.65)
40.12
46.00
50.87
47.07 (10.48)
39.00
49.00
55.50
51.83 (9.71)
44.50
54.00
59.00
MT
15.29 (4.74)
13.00
16.00
19.00
17.50(5.62)
13.00
19.00
21.00
17.41 (5.42)
14.50
18.00
21.00
MLP
38.93 (12.11)
30.00
37.50
44.54
44.00 (11.00)
37.00
44.00
50.00
46.72 (11.91)
39.00
46.00
56.00
Table 2Writing Variables and Cognitive Variables according to school grade: descriptive statistics
and percentiles.
The descriptive study was completed exploring the variation of writing performance
by school grade. The ANOVA test indicated that writing fluency increased with progress
in the school trajectory (F = 12.86, p < .001). Post-hoc comparisons indicated that 5th graders had higher writing fluency
than their 4th and 3rd grade counterparts, and 4th graders outperformed 3rd graders.
Likewise, it was observed that performance in written expression (F = 4.39, p = .014) was higher in 5th graders than in 3rd graders. Finally, no differences were
observed in sentence writing (F = 2.30, p = .103) in relation to school grade.
These results reveal that participants’ written expression and fluency in syntactic
and semantic access improved in the upper grades.
In order to address the second goal of the study, the cognitive performance of students
from 3rd to 5th grade was described and compared (table 1). Due to the lack of cognitive test standardization norms, percentiles were also
calculated, identifying children with low, medium, and high performance. Table 2 shows that the values vary depending on the school grade, which shows the gains in
the cognitive development of the students.
To weigh possible age differences in cognitive development, a series of ANOVAs were
conducted. The results indicated that planning skills (F = 6.54, p = .002), attentional efficacy (F = 5.00, p = .008), visuospatial perception (F = 6.02, p = .003), working memory (F = 3.46, p = .035) and long-term memory F = 5.91, p = .004) fluctuated depending on the school trajectory. Post-hoc analyses indicated
that 5th graders showed the best cognitive performance, followed by 4th and 3rd graders.
These results show that children increase in their cognitive abilities as they move
on along their educational trajectory.
Correlation study
The third goal aimed at analysing whether cognitive variables may account for performance
in written expression. In order to do this, an associative test was performed.
The results (Table 3) indicated that written expression correlated positively with working memory (r = .267, p < .001), long-term memory (r = .294, p < .001), visuospatial perception (r = .293, p < .001) and planning (rho = .235, p < .01). No correlation was observed with attentional efficacy (rho = .80, p = .32).
Additionally, writing fluency and sentence writing were associated with cognitive
functions. Sentence writing was associated with working memory (r = .160, p < .05) and long-term memory (r = .164, p < .05). Writing fluency was associated with working memory (r = .267, p < .01), long-term memory (r = .303, p < .01), visuospatial perception (r = .325, p < .01) and planning (rho = .241, p < .01).
These results indicate that working memory, long-term information retrieval, planning,
and visuospatial perception are significantly related to fluency and accuracy in writing
sentences. Although the magnitude of these correlations was moderate, it allowed the
explanatory models to be outlined.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. WE
1
2. WS
.810**
1
3. WFa
.819**
.375**
1
4. WT
.267***
.160*
.267**
1
5. LTM
.294 ***
.164*
.303**
.345***
1
6. VP
.293***
.110
.325**
.153
.127**
1
7. Attentiona
.080
.029
.045
.036
.020
.063
1
8. Planninga
.235**
.113
.241**
.154*
.164*
.203**
.153*
1
Table 3Correlations between written expression, cognitive functions, and executive functions
Regression Analysis
In order to carry out a predictive analysis, a multiple linear regression model was
built using the hierarchical stepwise method. The Written Expression cluster score
was taken as the dependent variable. The predictor variables were working memory,
long-term memory, planning and visuospatial perception, depending on their importance
in the revised theoretical models. Planning was introduced in the first step, and
working memory was then added in the second. In the third step, long-term memory was
incorporated. Finally, visuospatial perception was included.
Models
F
B
Standar Error
f2
Step 1
7.965** (1,166)
.046
.040
.311
.048
Planning
-.599
.035
.214**
Step 2
9.210** (2,165)
.100
.090
.739
.111
Planning
.084
.034
.183*
WM
.036
.011
.236**
Step 3
8.615** (3,164)
.136
.120
.886
.157
Planning
.072
.034
.158*
WM
.026
.012
.169*
LTM
.014
.005
.203**
Step 4
9.039** (4,163)
.182
.161
.973
.222
Planning
.053
.034
.115
WM
.022
.012
.146*
LTM
.013
.005
.191**
VP
.018
.006
.220**
Table 4Hierarchical regression of Planning, Working Memory, Long-Term Memory and Visuoperception
on Written Expression
The results (table 4) revealed that as the variables are successively incorporated, the model acquires
greater explanatory power, increasing its statistical power and effect size, which
turned out to be moderate ().
At Step 1 (R2= .046, p < .001), planning skills explained 4% of the variance. Working memory, at Step 2 (R2 = .100, p < .001), increased the model’s explanatory power to 10%. According to the standardized
beta scores, both variables showed a significant contribution. In Step 3, long-term
memory (R2 = .136, p < .001) increased the model’s explanatory power to 13%. In this model, executive
functions and long-term memory predict writing competence, making a significant individual
contribution.
In Step 4, with visuospatial perception (R2= .182, p < .001), the model increased its explanatory power to 18%. In this final model, working
memory, long-term memory, and visuospatial perception predicted children’s writing
proficiency. Contrary to expectations, planning was not observed to make a significant
contribution. This finding challenges models in which planning, as an executive process,
optimizes textual production. In addition, its explanatory power decreased when visuospatial
perception was included, which opens a question about the mediating or moderating
role of this variable. Studies with more complex statistical models will be necessary
to answer this question.
In short, the model built with working memory, long-term memory and visuospatial perception
revealed its predictive potential of the ability to write sentences with ideational
fluency.
Discussion
This study aimed to analyse the predictive value of cognitive and executive processes
in written expression tasks in Argentine children. The results obtained make interesting
contributions in relationship to the study’s aims.
The first goal was to describe children’s writing ability. The results showed the
effect of schooling, which improves this ability.
This effect was especially observed in writing fluency, which is favoured by spelling
automation (Wendling, 2007) throughout schooling (). This result supports claims about the substantial improvement in writing tasks
starting in fourth grade ().
Some studies reported that, in lower grades, transcription, when it has not been automated,
restricts written production (; ). Other studies have indicated that the automatization of transcription frees up
cognitive resources (; ) and allows executive functions to directly support writing (; ).
The second goal was to evaluate cognitive and executive processes involved in writing
activity. In these cognitive tasks, better scores were obtained in fifth graders,
compared to lower grades.
A study that investigated the development of writing and the role of executive functions
reported similar results in the increase in executive functioning in the course of
schooling (). Another longitudinal study () provided evidence on the increase in cognitive resources in higher grades that make
it possible to write more complex texts.
The third goal was to analyse relations between writing skills and cognitive processes
and the effects of the latter on the former.
Planning and working memory were observed to have associations with written expression.
Studies with second and fourth grade children showed a direct effect of working memory
and planning on the quality of their texts. Children with better working memory and
planning produced texts of higher quality and syntactic complexity than children with
lower executive performance (; ).
Visuospatial perception and long-term memory correlated with all writing measures.
This is an interesting contribution, because in the writing task proposed, the students
received visual stimuli and executed a motor response, requiring the semantic and
syntactic retrieval of the mental lexicon, which was favoured by the automation of
spelling (; ). Studies focusing on visuo-motor processes concluded that the visuospatial sketchpad
is an important transcription guide, because the visual permanence of the written
trace reduces the demand for executive function resources ().
Finally, the predictive model of cognitive and executive processes revealed a moderate
effect.
In studies on writing development, planning, and working memory have been related
to syntactic complexity (). There is also consensus on the central role of working memory in organizing information,
commanding lexical, syntactic and semantic processes (; ; ; ; ). Our results showed that these executive functions allowed children to elaborate
sentences and phrases, integrating the information, and applying grammatical rules
to obtain a clear text.
Long-term memory increased the predictive power of the model. Information retrieval
had a positive effect on written fluency. Long-term memory stores information about
grammatical, syntactic, and spelling rules, which must be retrieved to compose the
text (). Enunciative, episodic and procedural knowledge is used to connect the retrieved
information with working memory to carry out writing processes (; ).
Lastly, visuospatial perception also proved to have a predictive value. This relationship
is consistent with the writing tasks performed because they required auditory and
visual stimuli, since writing requires perceptive maturity in both areas (; ). This maturity is essential for the automatization of the spelling code and the
motor processes. Another study reported the relationship between executive functions
and visual processing for the execution of writing, which explains a significant percentage
of the variance ().
Contrary to the claims discussed, our final model reported that planning, although
correlated with writing tasks, was not observed to have explanatory weight in writing.
This may be because the Porteus Labyrinth Test measures visuospatial planning, which
is different from the strategic planning required in writing. In addition, the ability
to plan a text is achieved through the school education system. Thus, including strategic
planning measures in the model would provide greater clarity on the role of planning.
This constitutes one of the limitations of our study.
However, we can highlight the contributions of the study to the knowledge of the role
played by working memory, visuospatial processing, and retrieval in long-term memory
for the writing of fluent and coherent sentences.
Limitations
In addition to the predictive weakness of planning, other limitations can be mentioned.
First, the absence of a relationship and an effect of attention on writing skills.
This could be due to the characteristics of the attention test used, that demanded
attention focused on aspects of the visual and morphological stimuli, while in order
to write, it is attention directed to linguistic processes that is mainly needed.
Future studies should include an attentional test that is relevant to these processes.
There are also limitations related to the writing evaluation method, which represents
the most complex methodological aspect of writing studies. The use of standardized
batteries allows an objective evaluation, facilitates comparison, and enables the
construction of explanatory models. However, it creates some barriers because it fails
to include other aspects, such as attitude towards writing and motivation. One way
to complete the evaluation is to include the production of narratives or other textual
types. This would present a panorama with more elements to access the complexity of
writing.
Finally, future studies could use more demanding statistical models including variables
such as vocabulary and teaching method.
Contributions and future directions
Our results show the contribution of executive functions and other cognitive processes
to children’s writing ability. When jointly considering working memory and planning,
it was observed that they predict the writing of adequate sentences with semantic
and syntactic content in children from 3rd to 5th grade. Future studies could be carried
out with students from higher school grades. This would allow the evaluation of these
processes in more proficient writers.
Another contribution was in relation to long-term memory. Since writing demands the
use of various contents, adequate recovery capacity and ideational fluency will improve
writing activity.
Finally, conducting a study of the cognitive processes involved in writing among Argentine
Spanish-speaking children represented another contribution. Previous studies were
carried out with children who speak different languages, such as Catalan, Peninsular
Spanish (), German, Dutch (; ) and Portuguese (), but little research has been carried out on Argentine Spanish-speaking children
(). The differential, phonological and semantic characteristics of their variety of
Spanish with respect to other versions of Spanish merit the development of this study.
Educational implications
The writing tasks carried out in this study allow the design of school interventions:
a) the dictation of words to improve manual writing, spelling, and its automation;
b) the search for unknown words to increase the semantic store; c) writing about various
topics to stimulate the acquisition of syntactic content and planning.
Likewise, the cognitive processes evaluated can be stimulated with execution tasks:
a) planning, with the realization of a mental plan of simple tasks; and in writing,
articulating the objectives of the text; b) working memory, performing direct and
reverse sequencing tasks of numbers or words.
References
1
American Psychological Association (2017). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2002, as amended 2010, 2016). American Psychologist. http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
2
Abusamra, V., Miranda, A., Cartoceti, R., Difalsis, M., Re, A., & Cornoldi, C. (2020).
Batería para la evaluación de la escritura. Paidós.
3
Altemeier, L; Jones, J.; Abbott, R., & Berninger, V. (2006). Executive Functions in
Becoming Writting Readers and Readers Writers: Note Taking and Report Writing in Third
and Fifth Grades. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29(1), 161-173. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326942dn2901_8
4
Alves, R. A., & Limpo, T. (2015). Progress in written language bursts, pauses, transcription,
and written composition across schooling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19(5), 374-391. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2015.1059838
5
Berninger, V. W., & Winn, W. (2006). Implications of advancements in brain research
and technology for writing development, writing instruction, and educational evolution.
In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Ed.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 96-114). Guilford Press.
6
Berninger, V., Abbot, R., Cook, C., & Nagy, W. (2016). Relatinship of attention and
executive functions to oral language, reading, and writing skills an systems in middle
childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(4), 434-449. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219415617167
7
Berninger, V., Yates, C., Cartwright, A., Rutberg, J., Remy, E., & Abbott, R. (1992).
Lower-level developmental skills in beginning writing. Reading and Writing, 4(3), 257-280 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01027151
8
Bohari-Lasaquero, P., Manso-Luengo, A., & Medina-Rivilla, A. (2017). La intervención
del bucle fonológico en la actividad ortográfica de alumnos de 2º y 5º de Educación
Primaria. Indivisa. Boletín de Estudios e Investigación, 17, 93-118. https://publicaciones.lasallecampus.es/index.php/INDIVISA/article/view/234
9
Bravo-Cóppola, L. (2004). Las destrezas perceptuales y los retos en el aprendizaje
de la lectura y la escritura. Una guía para la exploración y comprensión de dificultades
específicas. Actualidades Investigativas en Educación. https://doi.org/10.15517/aie.v4i1.9047
10
Cárdenas, M., & Arancibia, H. (2014). Potencia estadística y cálculo del tamaño del
efecto en G*Power: complementos a las pruebas de significación y su aplicación en
psicología. Salud & Sociedad, 5(2), 210-224. https://doi.org/10.22199/S07187475.2014.0002.00006
11
Carrada, M., & Ison, M. (2013). La eficacia atencional. Un estudio normativo en niños
escolarizados de Mendoza. PSIENCIA. Revista latinoamericana de Ciencia Psicológica 5(2), 63-73. https://doi.org/10.5872/psiencia/5.2.22
Cordeiro, C., Limpo, T., Olive, T., & Castro, S. (2019). Do executive functions contribute
to writing quality in beginning writers? A longitudinal study with second graders.
Reading and Writing, 33, 813-833. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09963-6
14
Cuetos, F. (2009). Psicología de la Escritura. Editorial Escuela Española.
15
Defior-Citoler, S., Martos F., & Herrera, L. (2000). Influencia de las características
del sistema ortográfico español en el aprendizaje de la escritura de palabras. Estudios de Psicología, 67, 55-64. https://doi.org/10.1174/02109390060206462
16
Díaz, A., Martín, R., Jiménez, J. E., García, E., Hernández, S., & Rodríguez, C. (2012).
Torre de Hanoi: datos normativos y desarrollo evolutivo de la planificación. European Journal of Education and Psychology, 5(1), 79-91. https://doi.org/10.30552/ejep.v5i1.81
Drijbooms, E., Groen, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2017). How executive functions predict
development in syntactic complexity of narrative writing in the upper elementary grades. Read and Writing, 30, 209-231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9670-8.pdf
20
Drijbooms, E., Groen, M. A., & Verhoeven, L. (2015). The contribution of executive
functions to narrative writing in fourth grade children. Reading and Writing, 28(7), 989-1011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9558-z
21
Espósito, A., & Ison, M. (2011). Aportes a los criterios de evaluación de la Figura
Geométrica Compleja de Rey (Figura A). Acta Psiquiátrica y Psicológica de América Latina, 57(4), 299-307.
22
Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writting realtions and their development.
Educational Psychologist, 35, 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3501_5
23
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1981). A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600
24
García-Madruga, J., Gutiérrez-Martínez, F., & Vila-Chaves, J. (2012). El Desarrollo
de la Memoria. In M. Carretero y J. A. Castorina (Comps.), Desarrollo Cognitivo y Educación II. Procesos del Conocimiento y Contenidos Específicos
(pp.47-69). Paidós.
25
García-Pérez, E. M., & Magaz-Lagos, A. (2000). Escalas Magallanes de Atención Visual. Albor-Cohs.
26
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing.
In C. M. Levy & S. R. Ransdell (Ed.), The Science of Writing (pp. 1-27). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27
Hayes, J. R. (2011). Kinds of knowledge-telling: Modeling early writing development.
Journal of Writing Research, 3(2), 73-92. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2011.03.02.1
28
Hooper, S.R.; Swartz, C.; Wakley, M.B.; de Kuif, R.E., & Montgomery, J. (2002). Executive
Functions in Elementary School Children with an without problems in written expression.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 57-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940203500105
29
Introzzi, I., Canet-Juric, L., Montes, S., López, S., & Mascarello, G. (2015). Procesos
Inhibitorios y flexibilidad cognitiva: evidencia a favor de la Teoría de la Inercia
Atencional. International Journal of Psychological Research, 8(2), 60-74. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.1510
30
Korzeniowski, C. (2015). Programa de estimulación de las funciones ejecutivas y su incidencia en el rendimiento
escolar en alumnos mendocinos de escuelas primarias de zonas urbano-marginadas [Tesis de doctorado inédita]. Facultad de Psicología. Universidad Nacional de San
Luis.
31
Korzeniowski, C., Cupani. M., Ison, M., & Difabio, H. (2016). School performance and
poverty: the mediating role of executive functions. Electronic Journal of Psychological Research, 14(3), 474-494. https://doi.org/10.14204/ejrep.40.15152
32
Korzeniowski, C., Morelato, G., Greco, C., & Monteoliva, J. M. (2020). Improving Executive
Functions in Elementary Schoolchildren. European Journal of Psychology and Educational Research, 3(1), 59-73. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejper.3.1.59
Marino, J.; Fernández, A., & Alderete, A. (2001). Valores Normativos y Validez Conceptual
del Test de Laberintos de Porteus en una Muestra de Adultos Argentinos. Revista Neurológica Argentina, 26, 102-107.
35
Mather, N. & Woodcock, R. (2005). Woodcock- Johnson III Pruebas de habilidades cognitivas. Riverside Publishing.
36
McGrew, K. S., Dailey, D. E. H., & Schrank, F. A. (2007). Woodcock-Johnson III Normative
Update. Score Differences: What the User Can Expect and Why (Bulletin No. 9). Riverside Publishing.
Miranda, A (2019). Desarrollo de la escritura en español: un estudio psicolingüístico [Tesis doctoral inédita]. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras. Universidad de Buenos Aires.
40
Monteoliva, J., Carrada, M., & Ison, M. (2017). Test de percepción de diferencias:
estudio normativo del desempeño atencional en escolares argentinos. Interdisciplinaria, 34(1), 39-56. https://doi.org/10.16888/interd.2017.34.1.3
Olive, T., Kellogg, R. T., & Piolat, A. (2008). Verbal, visual and spatial demands
during text composition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 669-687. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716408080284
45
Portellano-Pérez, J. A. (2005). Cómo desarrollar la inteligencia: Entrenamiento neuropsicológico de la atención y
las funciones ejecutivas. Somos.
46
Posner, M., Sheese, B., Odludas, Y., & Tang Y. (2006). Analyzing and shaping human
attentional networks. Neural Networks, 19, 1422-1429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2006.08.004
47
Salas, N., & Silvente, S. (2019). The role of executive functions and transcription
skills in writing: a cross‐sectional study across 7 years of schooling. Reading and Writing, 33, 877-905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09979-y
48
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1992). Dos modelos explicativos de los procesos de
producción escrita. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 58, 43-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.1992.10822332
49
Smith, S.R., & Zahka, N.E. (2006). Relationship between accuracy and organizational
approach on the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure and the differential ability scales:
a pilot investigation. Child Neuropsychol, 12, 383-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297040500350953
50
Tirapu-Ustarróz J.; Muñoz-Céspedes, J.; Peregrín-Valero, C., & Albéniz-Ferrera, A.
(2005). Propuesta de un Protocolo para la Evaluación de las Funciones Ejecutivas.
Revista de Neurología, 41(3), 177-186. https://doi.org/10.33588/rn.4103.2005054
51
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2020).
¿Qué se espera que aprendan los estudiantes de América Latina y el Caribe? Análisis
curricular del Estudio Regional Comparativo y Explicativo 2019. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373982
52
Wendling, B. J., Schrank, F. A., & Schmitt, A. J. (2007). Educational Interventions Related to the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement
(Bulletin No. 8). Riverside Publishing.
