Read Writ (2016) 29:955–979

DOI 10.1007/s11145-015-9606-8

Teaching writing to middle school students in Portugal

and in Brazil: an exploratory study

Ana Margarida Veiga Simão1 • Anabela Abreu Malpique2 •

Lourdes Maria Bragagnolo Frison3 •

André Marques1

Published online: 24 November 2015

 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract Learning how to write is a challenging process, typically developed in

schools. Teachers’ practices in teaching writing, however, have been under
researched. The aim of this study was to survey a sample of teachers from Portugal
(n = 96) and Brazil (n = 99) about their practices for and perceptions about writing
instruction. Teachers reported on time devoted to student writing and the teaching of
writing, on their practices to promote students’ self-regulated writing, adaptations
for less skilled writers, and their perceptions about writing and the teaching of
writing. Findings from this survey raised concerns about the quality of writing
instruction in both countries. Teachers reported little time devoted for writing and
the teaching of writing in their classes. The majority of the teachers rarely used
practices to promote students’ self-regulated writing or applied explicit teaching
methods for writing instruction. Both Portuguese and Brazilian teachers perceived
writing as a shared responsibility. Brazilian teachers, however, agreed with this
perception more strongly. Portuguese teachers’ perception of the importance of
writing for students’ academic and professional success was higher than the per-
ceptions held by Brazilian teachers. A positive correlation was found between
teachers’ preparation to teach writing and their practices to promote students’ self-
regulated writing. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords Writing instruction
Middle schools
Portugal
Brazil

& Anabela Abreu Malpique

anabela.malpique@gmail.com
1
Faculty of Psychology, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
2
School of Education, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia
3
School of Education, Pelotas Federal University, Pelotas, Brazil

123
956 A. M. V. Simão et al.

Introduction

In today’s network society, skilled writing is a core requirement for professional and
personal success, as well as a key competence for academic achievement
(Berninger, 2012; Moon, 2012). Writing serves as a global instrument of
communication in the digital age to assess content and curricular knowledge across
subject areas in contemporary educational settings (Graham, MacArthur, &
Fitzgerald, 2013; Malpique & Veiga Simão, 2012). Historically, even before the
invention of the printing press, writing served the unique need to share knowledge
by perpetuating images, ideas, feelings, and emotions, as a material manifestation of
culture. Writing is not, however, a natural process such as seeing, listening, or
speaking. Traditionally, reading and writing have been proposed as second-order
language processes, which unlike first-order processes like listening and speaking
require formal and systematic instruction (Emig, 1977). Thus, as an artificial
language process, writing needs to be taught.
Learning how to write is a challenging process, which is typically developed in
schools. Teachers’ practices for writing instruction have been, however, under
researched (Graham, Harris, MacArthur, & Fink, 2002; Peterson & McClay, 2014;
Wiebe Berry, 2006). Most international studies have reported problems in writing
instruction associated with the time spent on teaching writing, the type of writing
activities students produce across grade levels, and the implementation of evidence-
based practices for writing (Marcuschi, 2008; Myhill, 2005; Moon, 2012; Ryan &
Barton, 2014; Ulusoy & Dedeoglu, 2011). Over the last 30 years, a large number of
national surveys have been used to assess teachers’ writing practices in the United
States (e.g. Applebee, 1981; Applebee & Langer, 2006, 2011; Cutler & Graham,
2008; Graham, Capizzi, Harris, Hebert, & Morphy, 2014; Kiuhara, Graham, &
Hawken, 2009). In a large-scale study, Bridge, Compton-Hall, and Cantrell (1997)
examined teaching practices in elementary grades between 1982 and 1995 using
survey and observational data. The authors found a pattern of change on teachers’
practices, suggesting US teachers were moving away from a skills approach to
writing instruction by developing more opportunities for extended writing in their
classrooms. Yet, recent studies examining teachers’ practices in secondary classes
found that little time was devoted to writing instruction across subjects or
disciplines, even though teachers reported using evidence-based practices at least to
some degree (Applebee & Langer, 2011; Gilbert & Graham, 2010; Graham et al.,
2014; Kiuhara et al., 2009). These studies confirm findings from different
educational contexts across the globe, where national testing systems seem to
shape writing instruction (Carvalho, 2011; Moon, 2014; Ryan & Barton, 2014;
Ulusoy & Dedeoglu, 2011). In Portugal and in Brazil, however, similar national
surveys have not been conducted and research examining teachers’ practices for
writing instruction is scarce.
A basic assumption regarding the teaching of writing is that teachers need to
receive adequate training to teach writing. Several studies have examined teachers’
pre-service preparation and in-service training to teach writing. Cutler and Graham
(2008) found most primary teachers in the United States moderately agreed that

123
Teaching writing to middle school students in Portugal… 957

their writing instruction was effective but reported that their preparation for teaching
writing was poor or inadequate. More recently, Moon (2014) assessed the literacy
skills (e.g. spelling, vocabulary, and punctuation) of 203 Australian secondary
teaching undergraduates and found high rates of error on general spelling and
vocabulary tasks. In a national survey examining writing instruction in high schools
in the United States, Kiuhara et al. (2009) found 70 % of the teachers reported
receiving minimal to no preparation to teach writing during college, with 44 % of
the teachers also reporting low-levels of in-service training to teach writing.
Through hierarchical regression analysis, the authors further investigated if
teachers’ perceptions of their preparedness to teach writing predicted their use of
different evidence-based instructional practices for writing. Interestingly, the
perceptions of language arts teachers did not predict their reported teaching
behaviour after controlling variance from several other variables (e.g. gender and
years of teaching). The perceptions of social studies and science teachers, however,
accounted for unique and significance variance in their reported writing practices.
We located only one study examining the relationships between middle school
teachers reported practices for writing instruction, their preparation to teach writing,
and their perceptions about writing and writing instruction (Graham et al., 2014).
Findings indicated that teachers’ preparation to teach writing, teachers’ self-
efficacy, and teachers’ beliefs about the importance of writing made a significant
contribution to predicting teachers’ reported use of evidence-based practices for
writing instruction. Furthermore, teachers’ reported adaptations for struggling
writers were related to teachers’ self-efficacy to teach writing. Taken together, these
studies highlight the need to develop research examining relationships between
teachers’ instructional practices for writing and their perceptions about writing
instruction.
The main purpose of the current study was to explore Portuguese and Brazilian
teachers’ practices for teaching writing and their perceptions about writing and the
teaching of writing in middle school settings. Why is it important to undertake such
a study? First, writing is an essential tool for knowledge learning and development,
as it enables students to understand and develop new ideas and concepts, construct
meaning from different reading sources, and develop critical thinking (Carvalho,
2011; Graham & Harris, 2013). Yet, a growing number of students from different
countries and educational settings struggle to adequately master writing across the
school years (Berninger, 2012; Graham & Perin, 2007a). In Portugal, national
assessments of students’ learning progress for primary and secondary school
students showed limited writing skills across different subject areas (Sousa, Ferreira,
Castanheira, Pereira & Lourenço, 2010; Sousa, Ferreira, Romão, Pereira &
Lourenço, 2013). In Brazil, authors also reported similar findings across grade levels
(Cunha & Santos, 2006). Nevertheless, as in other educational contexts less
empirical research has been developed to study writing and writing instruction,
especially when compared to reading (Myhill & Fisher, 2010). In Portuguese and
Brazilian educational contexts, State initiatives such as the National Plan for
Reading (Ministry of Education, 2005; Ministry of Education and Culture, 2011)
have been implemented to promote evidence-based practices for reading instruction.
Similar initiatives have not been developed for the teaching of writing. Thus,

123
958 A. M. V. Simão et al.

considering that students’ writing is influenced by how they are taught to write
(Graham & Perin, 2007b) research is needed to examine teaching practices in
Portuguese and Brazilian schools.
Second, and despite its importance, little attention has been given to studying
what happens in Portuguese and Brazilian classrooms regarding the teaching of
writing. In Portugal, several authors (Carvalho, Pimenta, Ramos, & Rocha, 2006;
Carvalho & Barbeiro, 2013) have examined textbooks used in primary (year 1–4)
and middle schools (year 5–9) to teach history, geography, and sciences. Findings
showed that these textbooks included little extended writing prompts and writing
activities designed to engage students in knowledge construction and critical
thinking. Carvalho and Barbeiro (2013) also interviewed middle school teachers
from the same subject areas about students’ writing practices in their classrooms.
They found teachers’ purposes for having students write were mainly to assess
content knowledge and remember information. In Brazil, several authors (Colello
and Gasparian, 2007; Kleiman, 2006; Marcuschi, 2008) have argued that Brazilian
educational standards for teaching writing have long been centred on grammar
instruction and in teaching practices that do not engage students into learning
writing as a process.
Third, when investigating teachers’ practices for writing instruction, not only
teachers’ behaviour but also their perceptions about writing and writing instruction are
relevant factors to study (Graham et al., 2002). Costa (2011) argued that there is a lack
of awareness of the problems regarding the teaching of writing in Portugal, as most
teachers and students seem to think that skilled writing is an innate aptitude.
Supporting this argument, Malpique and Veiga-Simão (2015) found that when ninth-
grade students were asked to describe the attributes of good writing, the most common
answer they gave was the ability to be imaginative and creative. In Brazil, authors
assessed primary and middle school teachers’ knowledge about writing as a process
(Berberian, Bortolozzi, Massi, Biscouto, Enjiu, & Oliveira, 2013). Their findings
suggested teachers possessed limited knowledge regarding evidence-based practices
for writing, with implications on their teaching practices. Nevertheless, and despite its
importance, we located only one study specifically examining teachers’ reported
practices and beliefs about writing instruction. Gaitas and Martins (2009) found that
Portuguese primary teachers who followed a traditional theoretical orientation for
writing instruction (e.g. focus on correctness and teaching of skills) assigned activities
that mostly involved copying letters and texts, dictation, and completing worksheets.
Teachers who followed a social approach placed greater emphasis on writing for
specific purposes, engaging students more often in cooperative writing (e.g. peer and
small group) and in activities such as writing informative texts, instructional writing,
and creative writing. The authors further reported positive correlations between
teachers’ beliefs and theoretical orientations about teaching writing and the types of
activities they employed, confirming other studies developed in primary educational
settings (Graham et al., 2002; Wiebe Berry, 2006).
Finally, teachers’ professional practices and perceptions about teaching usually
reflect the policies and expectations of a particular school or educational system
(Hooper, Knuth, Yerby, & Anderson, 2009). This point acknowledges the
importance of examining teachers’ practices for and perceptions about writing

123
Teaching writing to middle school students in Portugal… 959

and teaching writing through a contextual lens. A contextual view of writing focuses
on how specific contexts shape students’ writing development (see Graham, Harris,
& Santangelo, 2015 for a review; Wiebe Berry, 2006). Thus, we argue that there is a
need to examine similarities and differences regarding teachers’ practices for and
perceptions about teaching writing between countries, as information may be gained
about how various educational contexts differentially mediate students’ writing
development.
In the current study, we examined Portuguese and Brazilian teachers reported
writing practices in middle school settings (years 5–9). This included the time
teachers assigned for teaching writing as well as the specific teaching practices they
applied. Assessing time spent writing and extended writing is critical considering
writing becomes a fundamental tool for knowledge learning and development in
middle schools across academic subjects. Yet, to our knowledge, no study has
examined the amount of time Portuguese and Brazilian middle school teachers
devoted to teaching writing.
Furthermore, we were particularly interested in examining teachers’ reported
practices to foster the development of students’ self-regulated writing. Self-
regulated writing has been defined as ‘‘self-initiated thoughts, feelings, and actions
that writers use to attain various literacy goals’’ (Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997,
p. 7). Different meta-analyses support the positive impact of strategy instruction
(e.g. explicit teaching of planning and revising strategies) on the quality of the texts
produced by primary and middle school students (Graham et al., 2015; Graham, &
Perin, 2007a). Several authors have argue that teaching students procedures to self-
regulate their writing (e.g. goal setting, self-monitoring, and self-instructions) plays
a fundamental role in promoting the development of effective writing skills
(Graham & Harris, 2000; Graham, 2006). Glaser and Brunstein (2007) found that
integrating self-regulation procedures into more general writing strategies (e.g.
planning and revising) augmented fourth graders’ writing performance. Findings
from a recent meta-analysis (Graham et al., 2015) showed that the inclusion of self-
regulated procedures resulted in an increased averaged-weighted effect size of 0.50
in the quality of the texts written by primary and middle school students (grades
2–6).
We further examined teachers’ reported adaptations for less skilled writers in
their class, replicating previous research with middle and high school teachers.
Middle school teachers in the study by Graham et al. (2014) reported using different
adaptations for struggling writers across the school year. Similar results were found
with high school teachers in the Kiuhara et al. (2009) study. In both national
surveys, however, teachers reported applying these adaptations infrequently.
Effective writing instruction depends partly on developing and using practices that
respond to students’ individual differences and needs. As a result, we were
interested in examining similarities and differences between Portuguese and
Brazilian middle school teachers in that respect. Trying to investigate all teachers’
writing practices in a single study would be very difficult in questionnaire-based
studies (Cutler & Graham, 2008) such as ours. Therefore, we restricted our
assessment to specific teaching practices focusing on the promotion of students’
self-regulated writing and adaptations for less skilled writers.

123
960 A. M. V. Simão et al.

Finally, we examined teachers’ reported perceptions about writing and teaching

writing. Following previous studies (Graham et al., 2014; Kiuhara et al., 2009) we
examined relationships between teachers’ pre-service preparation and in-service
training to teach writing and specific teaching practices for and perceptions about
teaching writing. As noted earlier, this study adds a needed contextual lens to
research on writing instruction by exploring similarities and differences between
Portuguese and Brazilian teachers’ practices for and perceptions about writing and
writing instruction in middle schools. Six questions were addressed in this
investigation:

1. How much time do Portuguese and Brazilian middle school teachers assign to
teach writing?
2. Do Portuguese and Brazilian middle school teachers apply teaching practices to
promote students’ self-regulated writing?
3. What adaptations do Portuguese and Brazilian middle school teachers make for
less skilled writers?
4. Do Portuguese and Brazilian middle school teachers find they are prepared to
teach writing?
5. Are there any differences between Portuguese and Brazilian middle schools
teachers regarding teaching practices and perceptions about writing and writing
instruction?
6. Is teachers’ preparation related to teachers’ use of practices to promote
students’ self-regulated writing, adaptations for less skilled writers, and
teachers’ perceptions about writing and writing instruction?

As this was, to our knowledge, the first study that assessed Portuguese and
Brazilian teachers’ practices for writing instruction in middle schools, our
predictions were based on findings from similar studies outside Portuguese
educational settings (Applebee & Leger, 2011; Graham et al., 2014; Peterson &
McClay, 2014; Ulusoy & Dedeoglu, 2011). We felt that this was justified, as
previous studies using self-report instruments to investigate teachers’ literacy
practices have been supported by findings from observational research (e.g. DeFord,
1985; Pressley, Rankin, & Yokoi, 1996). Therefore, based on prior survey research,
we reasoned that teachers would be able to provide an accurate description of their
teaching practices. First, we anticipated that teachers would report devoting little
time to writing, teaching writing, or extended writing activities (Applebee &
Langer, 2011; Cutler & Graham, 2008; Gilbert & Graham, 2010). Moreover, we
expected that teachers would report applying strategies to foster students’ self-
regulated writing. Based on the limited research developed in Portuguese and
Brazilian educational settings, however, we anticipated that these practices would
not be frequently implemented, as their writing practices would focus on knowledge
assessment (Carvalho & Barbeiro, 2013) and teachers would have limited
knowledge of evidence-based practices for teaching writing (Berberian et al.,
2013). It was further anticipated that middle school teachers would make some
adaptations to help less skilled writers in their class, but that such adaptations would
be used sparingly (Graham et al., 2014; Kiuhara et al., 2009).

123
Teaching writing to middle school students in Portugal… 961

We further predicted that most teachers would find their preparation to teach
writing inadequate, especially their pre-service preparation. Graham et al. (2014)
found the majority of middle school teachers in the United States reported having
received minimal or no formal pre-service preparation to teach writing. We
anticipated that teachers would perceive writing as a valuable tool to assess
students’ knowledge across content areas (Carvalho & Barbeiro, 2013). We further
expected Portuguese and Brazilian teachers would find writing instruction
important. Considering Carvalho and Barbeiro (2013) findings, however, we
anticipated that a considerable number of teachers would not perceive writing
instruction as a shared responsibility.
Lastly, we expected teachers’ reported pre-service preparation and in-service
training would be related to teachers’ practices to promote self-regulated writing,
adaptations for less skilled writers, and teacher’s perceptions about writing and
writing instruction. Based on studies highlighting the role of context in writing
development (Kaplan, Lichtinger & Gorodetsky, 2009; Malpique & Veiga Simão,
2015; Schultz & Fecho, 2000), we further anticipated significant differences
between Portuguese and Brazilian middle school teachers regarding some writing
practices and perceptions about writing and writing instruction.

Method

Participants and setting

Middle school teachers (years 5–9) from different content areas—Language arts;
social studies; sciences; and arts and technologies—from 14 metropolitan public
schools in Lisbon, Portugal, and Pelotas, Brazil, participated in this study
(N = 195). Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the participating
Portuguese (n = 96) and Brazilian teachers (n = 99). Portuguese and Brazilian
educational systems uphold similar policies for teaching writing. In Portuguese
schools, typical classrooms include students with different educational needs since
the country follows a provision policy grounded in a social model. Thus, writing
achievement of individual students varies considerably. Writing is systematically
used as a learning and assessment tool across all subject areas. In the last two
decades, and following the shift from product to process writing, statutory
frameworks have been set to offer guidelines related to the teaching of writing in
schools. However, curriculum standards for teaching writing in middle schools are
restricted to Portuguese and second language leaning classes. Students are tested
frequently and receive numeric grades on their writing assignments throughout a
school year and on national exams (end of year 4, 6, 9, and 12). National exams aim
to assess students’ reading comprehension and writing skills, including grammatical
analysis (e.g. morphology, syntax, and semantics). Exams include an extended
writing prompt following a particular mode of discourse (e.g. narrative, persuasive,
and argumentative). In Brazil, the length of compulsory education has been
established for 9 years since 2006. From the late 1990’s, national curriculum
guidelines have set standards for the teaching of writing following a process-

123
962 A. M. V. Simão et al.

Table 1 Characteristics of responders

Variable Portugal Brazil Total

N = 96 % N = 99 % N = 195 %

Gender of teacher
Male 17 18 13 13 30 15
Female 79 82 86 86 165 84
Content area
Language arts 42 44 28 28 70 36
Social Studies 9 9 23 23 32 16
Sciences 29 30 32 32 61 31
Arts and technologies 16 16 16 16 32 16
Highest degree achieved
Diploma 9 – 5 – 14 7
Bachelor 73 – 85 – 158 81
Masters 14 – 7 – 21 11
Doctorate 0 – 2 – 2 1
Years of teaching
Mean 20 – 7 – 16 –
Median 20 – 6 – 16 –
Number of classes
Mean 5 – 7 – 6 –
Median 4 – 6 – 5 –
Number of students per class
Mean 24 – 24 – 37 –
Median 25 – 27 – 25 –
Pre-service training for teaching writing
None 35 37 11 11 46 24
Minimal 16 17 28 28 44 23
Adequate 42 44 54 55 96 49
Extensive 3 3 6 6 9 4
In-service training for teaching writing
None 24 25 11 11 35 18
Minimal 21 22 33 33 54 27
Adequate 46 47 51 52 97 50
Extensive 5 5 4 4 9 5
Time devoted to writing and writing instruction
Time students spend writing (weekly) 44 – 38 – – –
Time teachers spend teaching writing (weekly) 25 – 25 – – –
Number of extended writing activities (monthly) 3 – 2 – – –

oriented model. Achievement goals for writing are restricted to Portuguese language
classes in which teaching guidelines are provided on how planning, translating, and
revising should be taught. National standardised tests are administered to students in

123
Teaching writing to middle school students in Portugal… 963

grades 5, 9, and 12. National exams aim to assess mainly students’ reading
comprehension and knowledge about particular writing modes. These also include
grammatical analysis (e.g. morphology, syntax, and semantics).
To allow meaningful contextual comparisons, Portuguese and Brazilian schools
were initially selected according to the average grades in Portuguese national exams
(mandatory in year 9 in both educational systems). National exam scores range from 1
(lowest) to 5 (highest). Twenty schools (eight in Portugal and 12 in Brazil) with
average grades below and above 3 were initially contacted to participate in this study.
One Portuguese school and four Brazilian schools declined the invitation. Average
scores from the Portuguese schools involved (n = 7) was M = 2.85 (SD = 0.35),
with a range of scores from 2.6 to 3.6. Average scores from the Brazilian schools
involved (n = 7) was M = 2.59 (SD = 0.53), with scores ranging from 2.0 to 3.5. The
average scores for the two countries did not differ statistically (p = .28).

Instrumentation

The Teachers’ Practices for and Perceptions about Writing Instruction (TPPWI)
questionnaire was developed to assess teachers’ practices for writing instruction and
their perceptions about writing and writing instruction in middle school settings. To
generate items for the questionnaire, reviews were performed to examine existing
questionnaires and scales assessing writing instruction from years 5 to 9, the last 5 years
of basic education in Portugal and Brazil. The current questionnaire was adapted from
several national surveys on writing instruction in American elementary, middle, and
high schools (Gilbert & Graham, 2010; Graham et al., 2014; Kiuhara et al., 2009), since
these instruments covered the range of school years we were interested in examining. In
developing the questionnaire, we chose specific scales and condensed some scales to
answer the proposed research questions. For our first research question, we adapted two
items from Gilbert and Graham’s (2010) survey assessing time spent teaching writing
and time students spent writing. We added a third item assessing time students spent on
extended writing. These items were included in the first section of the questionnaire that
also gathered background information. For the next three research questions, we adapted
14 items from Kiuhara et al. (2009) survey. Finally, to assess teachers’ perceptions about
writing and writing instruction, we adapted 6 items from Kiuhara et al. (2009), and 2
items from the Graham et al. (2014) survey. Items were then translated into Portuguese
and back-translated into English in order to produce equivalent and culturally
appropriate versions. A team of linguists checked and reviewed the items to control for
European Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese variations.
The questionnaire was piloted with 22 middle school teachers from different
schools in Portugal and Brazil. After completing the questionnaire, we conducted an
open ended interview with the respondents to identify difficulties arising in its
administration (e.g. language issues, questions that could hinder participants’
responses, and time to complete it) and to evaluate their interpretation of the items
(e.g. self-monitoring and modelling). We made several changes based on
subsequent analyses, namely involving item clarity and number of items.
The questionnaire included five sections. In the first section, we asked teachers to
provide demographic information about their gender, content area, highest

123
964 A. M. V. Simão et al.

educational level, years spent teaching, number of classes, and number of students
per class. Teachers were also asked to rate the quality of their pre-service
preparation and in-service training to teach writing. In the final part of this section,
teachers were asked to indicate how much time their students spend writing, how
much time they spend teaching writing, and to report on the frequency of extended
writing activities (more than one paragraph).
The second section asked teachers about their use of eight specific practices to
promote students’ self-regulated writing (e.g. planning, organising, and self-
monitoring). In the third section, teachers were asked to indicate how often they
made six adaptations for weaker writers in their class. Directions were included at
the beginning of this section explaining that an adaptation occurred only when an
activity was done more often with less skilled writers than it was with the other
students in the class (see Gilbert & Graham, 2010 for similar procedures). In both
sections, the teachers responded to the 14 items using a five-point Likert-type scale
with the following response options: never, several times a year, monthly, weekly,
and daily, scores ranged from never (1) to daily (5).
In the fourth section, three statements assessed teachers’ judgments about the
importance of writing (e.g. important to high-school, college, and professional
success). One statement concerned teachers’ judgment about whether their students
have acquired the needed writing skills to work in their classes. In the final section
of the questionnaire, two statements assessed teachers’ judgments abour their
preparedness for teaching writing. The remaining two statements asked teachers
about their responsibility to teach writing and their enjoyment of teaching writing.
Teachers responded to these items using a six-point Likert scale with the following
response options: strongly agree, moderately agree, slightly agree, slightly disagree,
moderately disagree, and strongly disagree, scored from 1 (strongly agree) to 6
(strongly disagree). The final version was administered to teachers (see ‘‘Appendix’’
section). Mean completion time was 20 min.

Procedures

Two Portuguese and two Brazilian trained graduate assistants (GA) went to each
participating school and administrated the questionnaire face-to-face. Data were
collected after the approval of the study by both countries’ Ethics Committees,
principals, and participating teachers. GAs entered all data into SPSS files.

Results

We first present results regarding the component structure and internal consistency
of the Teachers’ Practices for and Perceptions about Writing Instruction (TPPWI)
questionnaire. Then, we present findings for each of the research questions posed in
the introduction.

123
Teaching writing to middle school students in Portugal… 965

TPPWI: Component structure and internal consistency

The questionnaire include two scales designed to assess teachers’ practices for
teaching writing and teachers’ perceptions about writing and teaching writing. We
examined the factorability of the 14 items of the first scale and the correlations for
all list wise combinations. The computed correlation matrix was appropriate for
factor analysis, with Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy of 0.87
well above the commonly recommended value of 0.6. A Principal Component
Analysis (PCA) for the 14 items revealed two factors with Eigen values greater than
1.0 explaining 58 % of the overall variance. A Varimax rotation was also performed
to maximize factor dispersion and to produce a more interpretable solution. Eight
items loaded at 0.69 or greater on the first factor—Practices to promote self-
regulated writing (Factor 1, items 1–8 in ‘‘Appendix’’ section). Six items loaded at
0.67 or greater on the second factor—Adaptations for less skilled writers (Factor 2,
items 9–14 in the ‘‘Appendix’’ section). Coefficient alpha values for these two
factors were 0.90 and 0.82, respectively.
The second scale assessed teachers’ perceptions about writing and teaching
writing. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin sampling adequacy showed a result of 0.70, again
above the recommended value of 0.6. A PCA for the eight items revealed two
factors with Eigen values greater than 0.1 explaining 60 % of total variance. In
order to maximize the factor dispersion and to produce a more interpretable solution
a Varimax rotation was also performed. Four items loaded at 0.58 or greater on the
first factor—Perceptions about writing (Factor 3, items 1–4 in the ‘‘Appendix’’
section). Four items loaded at 0.69 or greater on the second factor—Perceptions
about teaching writing (Factor 4, items 5–8 in the ‘‘Appendix’’ section). Coefficient
alpha values for these two factors was 0.76 and 0.73, respectively.

Research questions

Question 1: Time devoted to writing and teach writing

When the reported time students spend writing and the time spent teaching writing
were summed together, the mean was 68.61 min per week (SD = 67.27) in the
participating Portuguese teachers’ classes and 63.03 min per week (SD = 55.67) in
Brazilian teachers’ classes. On average, Portuguese teachers reported their students
spend about 44 min a week writing (M = 43.81 min, SD = 48.36), while Brazilian
teachers reported their students spend about 37 min a week writing
(M = 37.27 min, SD = 33.80). Moreover, Portuguese teachers reported spending
about 25 min teaching writing a week (M = 24.80 min, SD = 33.65), similar to
their Brazilian counterparts (M = 25.76 min, SD = 33.97). Finally, Portuguese
teachers reported assigning extended writing activities about 3 times in a month
(M = 2.83, SD = 5.09), while their Brazilian counterparts reported assigning such
activities about 2 times per month (M = 1.57, SD = 0.50). Results from
independent sample t test showed statistically significant differences between
Portuguese and Brazilian teachers on time assigned to extended writing activities,
t(194) = -1.262, p = .016, d = .35.

123
966 A. M. V. Simão et al.

Question 2: Promoting students’ self-regulated writing

Frequencies, means, and standard deviations for teachers’ reported use of practices
to promote students’ self-regulated writing are presented in Table 2. Portuguese and
Brazilian teachers reported using a variety of strategies to promote students’ self-
regulated writing. Positive reinforcement was the strategy that Portuguese (62 %)
and Brazilian (60 %) teachers reported using more frequently. The frequency of the
reported use of the remaining strategies was, however, quite low in most cases.
Namely, Portuguese (75 %) and Brazilian (54 %) teachers reported using explicit
teaching methods (e.g. modelling, guided practice, and/or revising) quite infre-
quently. Furthermore, the large majority the participating Portuguese (77 %) and
Brazilian (80 %) teachers reported they rarely engaged students in pre writing
activities. Teaching proof reading and goal setting strategies were practices both
groups reported using quite sparingly, and never on a weekly or daily basis.

Question 3: Adaptations for less skilled writers

Frequencies, means, and standard deviations for teachers’ reported use of

adaptations for less skilled writers are presented in Table 2. Regarding the
frequency with which teachers provided extra-support for less skilled writers,
Portuguese (63 %) and Brazilian (78 %) teachers reported talking to these students
about their writing on a monthly basis or more often. Portuguese (69 %) and
Brazilian (64 %) teachers further reported that they frequently allowed weaker
writers to complete written tasks at their own pace. On the contrary, the majority of
Portuguese (57 %) and Brazilian (66 %) teachers reported never supporting weaker
writers by asking them to talk with fellow students about their writing. Moreover,
Portuguese (49 %) and Brazilian (45 %) teachers reported never providing extra
support to weaker writers by asking them to share their texts with other students.

Question 4: Teachers’ perceptions about their preparedness to teach writing

Table 3 presents information concerning Portuguese and Brazilian middle school

teachers’ perceptions about writing and writing instruction. Regarding teachers’
perceptions about their own preparation to teach writing over 30 % of the teachers
from both countries indicated adequate preparation to teach writing. The majority of
the Portuguese teachers (64 %) reported they had received both adequate pre-
service preparation to teach writing and in-service training (51 %). Similar to their
counterparts, the majority of the Brazilian teachers (61 %) found they had received
adequate pre-service preparation to teach writing and in-service training (55 %).

Question 5: Differences between Portuguese and Brazilian middle school teachers

regarding teaching practices and perceptions about writing and writing instruction

Independent samples t tests were computed to examine any statistically

significant differences between Portuguese and Brazilian teachers’ practices for

123
 Table 2 Teachers practices for writing instruction
Never (%) Several/ Monthly Weekly Daily (%) M (SD) M (SD)
year (%) (%) (%)

PT BR PT BR PT BR PT BR PT BR PT BR

How often do you

1. Develop pre writing activities with students to help them collect 42.5 50.0 34.0 30.4 14.9 4.9 13.8 7.8 1.1 6.9 2.06 (1.13)a* 1.78 (0.93)a*
and organize ideas for writing composition
2. Teach strategies to plan how and what to write 31.9 35.3 29.4 32.9 21.6 21.6 12.7 12.7 1.0 1.0 2.20 (1.10) 2.16 (1.08)
3. Teach proof reading strategies 40.4 45.1 20.6 29.8 34.3 34.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.04 (1.12) 2.01 (1.06)
4. Set goals/specific objectives for students to include in the 29.8 41.2 26.5 35.1 32.4 32.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.20 (1.10) 2.03 (1.02)
proposed writing task
5. Ask students to study and emulate models of good written 45.7 52.0 29.4 27.6 13.7 13.7 4.9 4.9 0.0 0.0 1.93 (1.02)a* 1.71 (0.88)a*
composition
6. Develop self-monitoring strategies with students so that they 50.0 57.8 23.5 23.4 12.7 12.7 5.9 5.9 0.0 0.0 1.92 (1.11) 1.69 (0.92)
may monitor their writing performance and the attainment of the
Teaching writing to middle school students in Portugal…

objectives set for the task

7. Use explicit teaching methods (modelling, guided practice and/ 43.6 33.3 31.4 20.2 10.8 10.8 17.6 17.6 6.9 6.9 2.19 (1.26) 2.10 (0.95)
or review)
8. Complement students verbally and offer them positive 10.6 8.8 30.8 31.4 11.7 10.8 30.8 19.6 29.4 29.4 3.09 (1.30) 3.33 (1.40)
reinforcement when they write
How often do you (extra-instruction for weaker writers)
9. Talk to the student about his/her writing 15.4 11.9 21.9 9.9 39.6 26.7 15.4 20.8 7.7 30.7 2.78 (1.13)a** 3.53 (1.33)a**
10. Ask the student to talk with other students about his/her writing 57.1 66.3 14.2 5.9 17.6 14.9 7.7 7.9 3.3 5.0 1.85 (1.17) 1.84 (1.29)
11. Ask students with greater mastery in writing to help weaker 27.5 40.6 20.8 10.9 25.3 14.9 10.9 13.9 15.4 19.8 2.61 (1.42) 2.69 (1.60)
writers
12. Let the student complete the written work at his/her own pace 18.9 20.8 12.0 14.9 29.7 19.8 21.9 8.9 17.6 35.6 3.05 (1.33) 3.28 (1.57)
13. Teach skills or strategies again that have been previously taught 22.2 34.7 15.6 7.9 25.6 17.8 13.4 8.9 22.2 30.7 2.96 (1.45) 2.98 (1.68)
967

123
 Table 2 continued
968

Never (%) Several/ Monthly Weekly Daily (%) M (SD) M (SD)

year (%) (%) (%)

123
PT BR PT BR PT BR PT BR PT BR PT BR

14. Ask the student to share his/her written texts with other students 48.9 44.6 12.2 14.9 26.7 23.8 10.0 7.9 8.9 8.9 2.78 (1.13) 3.53 (1.33)

Coefficients in the same row that share a superscript letter are significantly different from each other. ** p \ .05; * p \ .10
A. M. V. Simão et al.
 Table 3 Teachers Perceptions about writing and writing instruction
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly Moderately Strongly M (SD) M (SD)
agree (%) agree (%) agree (%) disagree disagree disagree
(%) (%) (%)

PT BR PT BR PT BR PT BR PT BR PT BR PT BR

1. My students have the writing skills they need to 5.4 5.9 23.9 20.8 25.0 31.7 20.6 25.0 10.9 15.8 14.1 8.9 3.54 (1.46) 3.40 (1.36)
work in my classes
2. Written composition is an essential competency 82.6 82.2 8.7 11.8 4.3 2.9 0.0 4.3 2.2 0.9 2.2 0.9 1.38 (0.99) 1.29 (0.82)
for students when they graduate high school
3. In primary and secondary education, the 18.5 15.8 48.9 27.7 16.3 19.8 7.6 16.3 5.4 17.8 3.3 6.9 2.46 (1.26)a** 3.08 (1.54)a**
necessary writing skills are taught to students so
that the latter succeed in the workplace
4. In primary and secondary education, the 20.6 16.0 55.4 22.0 11.9 21.0 4.3 11.9 2.2 15.0 5.4 8.0 2.33 (1.28) 3.17 (1.53)
Teaching writing to middle school students in Portugal…

necessary writing skills are taught to students so

that the latter succeed in higher education
5. I received adequate preparation in my initial 21.7 11.8 33.7 23.5 9.8 25.5 3.3 9.8 6.5 9.8 25.0 18.6 3.16 (1.91)a** 3.36 (1.67)a**
training to teach writing in my curriculum area
6. I received adequate continuous training to teach 18.5 10.9 26.9 23.8 15.2 20.8 4.3 15.2 11.9 4.9 23.9 23.8 3.42 (1.89)a** 3.45 (1.70)a**
writing in my curriculum area
7. Written composition should be taught in all 42.4 76.2 29.3 9.9 15.2 9.9 5.4 15.2 1.1 0.0 6.5 0.9 3.16 (1.28) 3.17 (1.53)
subjects
8. I like to teach writing 48.9 51.5 20.6 20.8 17.4 20.8 7.6 17.4 1.1 0.9 4.3 1.9 3.42 (1.37) 3.37 (1.89)

Coefficients in the same row that share a superscript letter are significantly different from each other. ** p \ .05; * p \ .10
969

123
970 A. M. V. Simão et al.

writing instruction. Results showed statistically significant differences between

Portuguese and Brazilian teachers on developing pre writing activities with
students to help them collect and organise ideas for writing, t(193) = 1.921,
p = .05, d = .27, and on asking students to study and emulate models of good
writing, t(193) = 1.613, p = .10, d = .23. Results further indicated statistically
significant differences between Portuguese and Brazilian teachers regarding the
frequency with which they provided extra support to less skilled writers by
talking with them about their writing, t(192) = -4.218, p = .00, d = .61.
Independent samples t tests were also computed to investigate statistically
significant differences between Portuguese and Brazilian teachers’ perceptions
about writing and writing instruction. We found statically significant differences
in teachers’ perceptions about middle school students’ receiving the required
preparation to achieve professional success, Portuguese teachers (M = 2.46,
SD = 1.26) reported higher levels of agreement than Brazilian teachers
(M = 3.08, SD = 1.54), t(190) = -3.073, p = .002, d = 0.44. Results also
indicated statistically significant differences in teachers’ perceptions about
students’ receiving the required preparation to achieve academic success,
Portuguese teachers (M = 2.33, SD = 1.28) reported higher levels of agreement
than Brazilian teachers (M = 3.17, SD = 1.53), t(190) = -4.095, p = .000,
d = 0.60. Finally, statistically significant differences were also found regarding
teachers’ perceptions about writing instruction as a shared responsibility,
Portuguese teachers (M = 2.09, SD = 1.34) reported lower levels of agreement
than Brazilian teachers (M = 1.42, SD = 0.89), t(190) = -4.095, p = .000,
d = 0.59. Finally, an independent samples t test was computed to measure the
differences in means between the two populations and examine any significant
statistical differences regarding the two factors from scale 1—Practices to
promote self-regulated writing and adaptations for less skilled writers and scale
2—Perceptions about writing instruction and perceptions about writing. We
found that Portuguese teachers were more negative regarding their perceptions
about writing instruction, M = 1.42, SD = .89, than Brazilian teachers,
M = 2.09, SD = 1.34, t(190) = -2.182, p = .000, d = 0.60.

Question 6: Correlations between teachers’ preparation, teaching practices

and perceptions about writing and writing instruction

The four examined factors—teachers’ practices to promote students’ self-

regulated writing, teachers’ adaptations for less skilled writers, teachers’
perceptions about writing, and teachers’ perceptions about writing instruction—
were correlated with teachers’ reported formal preparation for teaching writing
(pre-service and in-service). Table 4 presents correlations between the examined
variables. The quality of pre-service preparation was found to be positively
correlated with teachers’ practices to promote self-regulated writing, r = .146,
p = .046.

123
Teaching writing to middle school students in Portugal… 971

Table 4 Correlations between teachers’ formal preparation to teach writing, teachers’ practices and
perceptions about writing and writing instruction
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Pre-service preparation –
2. In-service training .52 –
3. Promoting self-regulated writing .14* -.03 –
4. Adaptations for struggling writers .01 -.00 .04 –
5. Perceptions about writing .06 .05 .09 -.00 –
6. Perceptions about writing instruction -.05 .04 -.11 -.00 .39 –

* p \ .05

Discussion

Teaching practices for writing

Writing is a complex skill, which requires teaching and time in order to develop
adequately (Applebee & Langer, 2011; Graham et al., 2014). Findings from the
current study indicate little time is devoted to writing practice and writing
instruction in Portuguese and Brazilian middle schools (Question 1). The
participating middle school teachers reported that their students in Portugal and
in Brazil spent on average between 44 and 37 min a week writing, respectively.
Moreover, they indicated students were writing texts that were more than one
paragraph in length very sparingly, an average of four and three times a month,
respectively. Quite worrisome was the finding that the participating Portuguese and
Brazilian teachers reported spending only on average 25 min teaching writing a
week. Significant differences between Portuguese and Brazilian teachers were also
found in the frequency of extended writing activities.
When interpreting these findings, however, it seems particularly relevant to
consider the characteristics of the responders, namely their content area. Nearly one-
half of the participating Portuguese teachers (44 %) were language arts teachers.
Brazilian language arts teachers accounted for only 28 % of this sample, with a
higher percentage of sciences teachers (32 %). The amount of time devoted to
writing and extended writing in middle schools may be different across subjects, as
students spend more time writing in language arts and social science classes
(Applebee & Langer, 2011). Given that the majority of the participating Portuguese
(53 %) and Brazilian (51 %) teachers were either language arts or social science
teachers, current findings provide support for the recommendation that more time
should be devoted to writing and writing instruction in both countries. Future
research, including classroom observation, needs to verify these findings and
attempt to identify factors that may influence the time devoted to writing and
teaching writing in Portuguese and Brazilian middle schools.
Findings from the current study further indicate that Portuguese and Brazilian
teachers employ several practices to teach writing to middle school students.
Nevertheless, practices to promote students’ self-regulated writing were used rarely

123
972 A. M. V. Simão et al.

(Question 2). In fact, more than 60 % of Portuguese and Brazilian teachers reported
never using, or only using several times a year, teaching practices for that purpose,
such as setting specific goals for writing, developing pre writing activities and self-
monitoring strategies for writing, teaching proof reading strategies, and asking the
students to study and emulate good models of written composition. Unexpectedly,
the majority of Portuguese and Brazilian middle school teachers also reported using
explicit teaching methods for writing instruction infrequently. These findings raise
serious concerns about the quality of writing instruction in Portuguese and Brazilian
middle school classes. Research testing ‘‘best practices’’ for writing instruction has
found the explicit teaching of writing strategies (e.g. planning, organising, and
revising) is a particularly effective method for improving the writing skills of all
students, with or without specific learning difficulties (Ellis, 2005; Englert, Raphael,
Anderson, Anthony & Stevens, 1991; Graham et al., 2013). As a step-by-step
problem solving method, evidence suggests that the explicit teaching and training of
such writing strategies may make the writing process more visible and tangible.
Additional research is needed to confirm these findings and examine in more detail
Portuguese and Brazilian practices for teaching writing, as well as teachers’
knowledge about evidence-based practices for writing instruction.
Interestingly, the current findings show that Portuguese and Brazilian teachers
make different adaptations for less skilled writers with some consistency (Question
3). The majority of the teachers allowed students to complete their writing at his/her
own pace, reteach strategies or skills that have been previously taught, talk with
students about their writing, and offer them positive reinforcement at least weekly
or more often. These results are not consistent with similar studies that found middle
and high school teachers used a variety of adaptations across the school year, but
applied them sparingly (Graham et al., 2014; Kiuhara et al., 2009).
The general trend in teachers’ practices for writing follows Applebee and
Langer’s findings (2011), in that the practices teachers employ were mostly
concerned with writing for writing’s sake, thus failing to emphasize writing as a
process. Examining writing instruction in Portugal, Carvalho and Barbeiro (2013)
reported that teacher’ used writing assignments mainly to promote the reproduction
of knowledge, downplaying writing tasks that could promote knowledge transfor-
mation. Considering the importance of self-regulated and strategic behaviour for
skilful writing (Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997; Graham, 2006) our results
highlight the need to further investigate how writing is being taught in Portuguese
and Brazilian schools. More specifically, observational studies should be developed
to confirm current findings and to provide a comprehensive understanding of the
reasons that substantiate teachers’ options for writing instruction.

Perceptions about writing and writing instruction

The majority of Portuguese and Brazilian middle school teachers in this study
believed they were prepared to teach writing (Question 4). Over 55 % of the
teachers reported they received adequate pre-service preparation and in-service
training to teach writing. Portuguese and Brazilian teachers, however, seemed to be
slightly more positive about their in-service preparation. These findings replicated

123
Teaching writing to middle school students in Portugal… 973

studies with middle and high school teachers in the United States (Graham et al.,
2014; Kiuhara et al., 2009). Moreover, Portuguese and Brazilian teachers’
perceptions about writing and writing instruction were quite positive (Question
5). Over 50 % of the participating middle school teachers totally or strongly agreed
writing was an important competence to be developed and taught through schooling.
Teachers were further positive about the importance of writing for students’ success
in the workplace and in higher education. Interestingly, Portuguese and Brazilian
teachers were not as positive in their agreement regarding their students’ preparation
to work in their class, with strongly and moderately agree scores below 30 %.
Contrary to our expectations, the majority of the Portuguese and Brazilian teachers
in this study agreed that writing instruction should be a shared responsibility.

Contextual differences in teachers’ practices for and perceptions

about writing and writing instruction

The findings from our investigation point to the need to investigate writing
development and writing instruction through a contextual lens (Kaplan et al., 2009;
Malpique & Veiga Simão, 2015; Schultz & Fecho, 2000; Wood & Connelly, 2009).
When we examined if there were differences in Portuguese and Brazilian middle
school teachers’ practices for and perceptions about teaching writing (Question 5),
several differences were found. Portuguese teachers were more likely to engage
students in pre writing activities to help them gather and organise writing ideas than
their Brazilian counterparts. Portuguese teachers also asked students to study and
imitate models of good writing more frequently than Brazilian teachers. Brazilian
teachers, however, were more likely to talk to students about their writing than
Portuguese teachers. They were also more positive in their perceptions about the
importance of writing and writing instruction than their Portuguese counterparts,
strongly agreeing that writing should be taught in all subjects. Portuguese teachers
in this study were more likely to stress the importance of writing to students’ future
education and employment than Brazilian teachers. Further research is needed to
replicate these findings and examine alternative explanations for these results,
including differences in educational systems, teachers’ subject areas, number of
students per class, demographic and socioeconomic differences, to name a few.

The role of preparation to teach writing

The results from this study indicated that teachers’ pre-service preparation for
writing instruction correlated positively with teachers’ ability to use practices to
promote students’ self-regulated writing (Question 6). For the remaining vari-
ables—adaptations, perceptions about writing, and perceptions about writing
instruction—no statistically significant correlations were found. Thus, teachers
who were more positive about their pre-service preparation to teach writing were
more likely to report that they applied evidence-based self-regulated writing
practices. Taken together, findings for the current study highlight the need to
reconsider educational policies for writing instruction in Portugal and Brazil.

123
974 A. M. V. Simão et al.

Limitations and conclusions

This study has several limitations. First, the relatively small sample size spanning
Portuguese and Brazilian teachers requires that caution must be applied in
interpreting our findings. Moreover, the use of a self-report instrument means that
the data must be viewed cautiously, as we did not assess the actual use of the
specific writing practices in either Portuguese or Brazilian middle schools. Research
is needed to determine if Portuguese and Brazilian teachers’ reported practices are
actually applied. Furthermore, there was no possibility of comparing teachers by
subject area due to the small sample size, which might have added possibilities for
contextual comparisons and more comprehensive information about middle school
teachers’ practices and perceptions about teaching writing in Portugal and in Brazil.
Another limitation of the current study was that the writing activities to promote
students’ self-regulated writing included in our questionnaire were not accompanied
by extensive descriptions. Based on the interviews conducted for the pilot study, we
believe that Portuguese and Brazilian teachers understood the basic concept
underlying each item. Despite that, we were unable to ensure that teachers
understood each item, in each subject, at each grade level, and in different countries.
This would have required the use of a different research methodology. Nevertheless,
to our knowledge this investigation is the only available study examining writing
instruction and perceptions about writing and writing instruction in Portuguese and
Brazilian middle schools from a contextual lens.
The findings from this study raised several concerns regarding Portuguese and
Brazilian teachers’ practices to teach writing in middle schools. First, little time was
devoted for writing and for teaching writing in Portuguese and Brazilian middle
schools. Considering the complexity of developing effective writing skills (Kellogg,
2008) and the importance of proficient writing for students’ academic and
professional success, current findings point to the need for additional research to
understand what is happening in Portuguese and Brazilian classrooms regarding
writing instruction. For example, teachers from this study agreed that it was
important to develop effective writing skills to foster students’ latter academic and
professional success, but their reported practices did not appear to follow this
perceived importance, as the majority of participating teachers rarely used practices
to promote students’ self-regulated writing. In order to foster such practices, a
greater focus must be placed on preparing middle school teachers to teach writing in
both countries. Adequate teacher training would include giving teachers the tools
required to make informed decisions about their practices for writing instruction,
namely teaching them how to use evidence-based practices to teach writing as a
process. That would include learning how to apply teaching practices to foster self-
regulated writing (Veiga Simão & Frison, 2013). In essence, if we want students to
write better, it is important to teach current and teachers in training how to
implement evidence-based practices. This would empower teachers to develop
activities and learning experiences to structure self-regulated learning environments
and promote self-regulated writing. Moreover, teachers would be able to acknowl-
edge how cognitive, motivational and volitional components interact with
contextual features (Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997; Graham, 2006) in students’

123
Teaching writing to middle school students in Portugal… 975

writing development, reflect upon their practices, and rethink their role on
promoting students’ proficiency in writing. Finally, findings from the current study
highlight the need to develop research assessing teachers’ practices for teaching
writing. This also includes fostering changes in governmental policies in Portugal
and Brazil, and encouraging policy makers to address the importance of preparing
teachers to teach writing and foster students’ writing development.

Acknowledgments This research was supported by FAPERGS 430-2551/14-2 (Fundação de Amparo à

Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul/Amparo Foundation for Research in the State of Rio Grande do
Sul), Brazil.

Appendix

See Table 5.

Table 5 Items in scales

Teachers practices for writing instruction
Factor# 1. Practices to promote self-regulated writing
1. Develop pre writing activities with students to help them collect and organize ideas for writing
Desenvolver com os alunos atividades de pré escrita para os ajudar a recolher e organizar ideias
para a composição escrita
2. Teach strategies to plan how and what to write
Ensinar estratégias para planificar como e o que escrever
3. Teach proof reading strategies
Ensinar estratégias para a revisão de texto
4. Set goals/specific objectives for students to include in the proposed writing task
Estabelecer metas/objetivos especı́ficos para o que os alunos devem incluir na tarefa de escrita
proposta
5. Use explicit teaching methods (modeling, guided practice and/or review)
Utilizar métodos de ensino explı́citos (modelagem, prática guiada e/ou revisão)
6. Complement students verbally and offer them positive reinforcement when they write
Elogiar verbalmente os alunos e oferecer-lhes reforço positivo quando escrevem
7. Ask students to study and emulate models of good written composition
Pedir aos alunos para estudar e imitar modelos de boa composição escrita
8. Develop self-monitoring strategies with students so that they may monitor their writing
performance and the attainment of the objectives set for the task
Desenvolver com os alunos estratégias de auto monitorização, para que os alunos possam
monitorizar o seu desempenho escrito e o cumprimento dos objetivos estabelecidos para a tarefa
Factor# 2. Adaptations for less skilled writers
9. Talk to the student about his/her writing
Conversar com o aluno sobre a sua escrita
10. Ask the student to talk with colleagues about his/her writing
Pedir ao aluno para conversar com outros colegas sobre a sua escrita

123
976 A. M. V. Simão et al.

Table 5 continued

11. Ask students with greater mastery in writing to help weaker writers
Pedir a alunos com maior domı́nio da escrita para ajudar os alunos com maiores dificuldades na
escrita
12. Let the student complete the written work at his/her own pace
Deixar o aluno completar o trabalho de escrita ao seu ritmo
13. Teach skills or strategies again that have been previously taught
Voltar a ensinar competências ou estratégias que tinha ensinado anteriormente
14. Ask the student to share his/her written texts with other students
Pedir ao aluno para partilhar os seus textos com os colegas
Teachers’ perceptions about writing and teaching writing
Factor# 3. Perceptions about writing
1. My students have the writing skills they need to work in my classes
Os meus alunos possuem as competências de escrita que precisam para trabalhar nas minhas
aulas
2. In primary and secondary education, the necessary writing skills are taught to students so that they
succeed in the workplace
No ensino básico e secundário, são ensinadas aos alunos as competências de escrita necessárias
para o seu sucesso na vida profissional
3. In primary and secondary education, the necessary writing skills are taught to students so that they
succeed in higher education
No ensino básico e secundário, são ensinadas aos alunos as competências de escrita necessárias
para o seu sucesso no ensino superior
4. Writing composition is an essential competency for students when they graduate high school
A composição escrita é uma competência essencial para os alunos quando terminam o ensino
secundário
Factor# 4. Perceptions about teaching writing
5. I received adequate preparation in my initial training to teach writing in my curriculum area
Recebi formação contı́nua adequada para ensinar a escrita na minha área curricular
6. I received adequate continuous training to teach writing in my curriculum area
Recebi preparação adequada na minha formação inicial para ensinar a escrita na minha área
curricular
7. I like to teach writing
Gosto de ensinar a escrever
8. Writing composition should be taught in all subjects
A composição escrita deveria ser ensinada em todas as disciplinas

References
Applebee, A. N. (1981). Writing in the Secondary School. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of
English.
Applebee, A., & Langer, J. (2006). The State of Writing Instruction: What Existing Data Tell Us. Albany,
NY: Center on English Learning and Achievement.
Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2011). ‘‘EJ’’ extra: A snapshot of writing instruction in middle schools
and high schools. English Journal, 100(6), 14–27.
Berberian, A. P., Bortolozzi, K. B., Massi, G., Biscouto, A. R., Enjiu, A. J., & Oliveira, K. D. F. P. D.
(2013). Knowledge analysis of teachers working in elementary school on the written language from
the perspective of literacy proficiency. Revista CEFAC, 15, 1635–1642.

123
Teaching writing to middle school students in Portugal… 977

Berninger, V. W. (Ed.). (2012). Past, Present, and Future Contributions of Cognitive Writing Research to
Cognitive Psychology. New York: Psychology Press.
Bridge, A. C., Compton-Hall, M., & Cantrell, C. S. (1997). Classroom writing practices revisited: The
effects of statewide reform on writing instruction. Elementary School Journal, 98, 151–169. doi:10.
1086/461889.
Carvalho, J. B. (2011). A escrita como objecto escolar: Contributo para a sua reconfiguração [Writing as a
school tool: Contributes to its reconceptualization]. In I. Duarte & O. Figueiredo (Eds.), Português,
Lı́ngua e Ensino (pp. 77–105). Porto: Universidade do Porto, Editorial.
Carvalho, J. A. B., & Barbeiro, L. F. (2013). Knowledge reproduction vs. knowledge construction? Uses
of writing in Portuguese schools. Revista Brasileira de Educação, 18, 609–628. doi:10.1590/S1413-
24782013000300006.
Carvalho, J. B., Pimenta, J., Ramos, J. & Rocha, S. (2006). Uses of writing in Portuguese basic school. In
Studies in Writing: Prepublications & Archives. Repository of the SIG Writing Publications.
Retrieved from http://sig-writing.publication-archive.com/publication/1/248.
Colello, S., & Gasparian, M. (2007). A escola que (não) ensina a escrever. [The School That Does (Not)
Teach Writing]. São Paulo: Paz e Terra.
Costa, J. (2011). Entrevista [Interview]. Palavras. Lisbon: APP. (October–December), pp. 7–36.
Cunha, N. B., & Santos, A. (2006). Relação entre a compreensão de leitura e a produção escrita em
universitários [The relation between college students’ reading comprehension and writing].
Psicologia: Reflexão e Crı́tica, 19(2), 237–245. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.br/pdf/prc/v19n2/
a09v19n2.pdf.
Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A national Survey. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 100, 907–919. doi:10.1037/a0012656*.
DeFord, D. (1985). Validating the construct of theoretical orientation in reading. Reading Research
Quarterly, 20, 351–367.
Ellis, L.A. (2005). Balancing approaches: Revisiting the educational psychology research on teaching
students with learning difficulties. Australian Council for Educational Research: ACER. Retrieved
from http://www.acer.edu.au/documents/AER_48-BalancingApproaches.pdf.
Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28(2),
122–128. doi:10.2307/356095.
Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L. M., Anthony, H. M., & Stevens, D. D. (1991). Making
strategies and self-talk visible: Writing instruction in regular and special education classrooms.
American Educational Research Journal, 28, 333–372. doi:10.3102/00028312028002337.
Gaitas, S., & Martins, M. A. (2009). Relações entre crenças e práticas de linguagem escrita em
professores do 18 ciclo. In Actas do X Congresso Internacional Galego-Português de Psicoped-
agogia, (pp. 1271–1285). Retrieved from http://uipcde.ispa.pt/ficheiros/areas_utilizador/user16/
gaitas_s._alves_martins_m._2009_relacoes_entre_crencas_e_praticas.pdf.
Gilbert, J., & Graham, S. (2010). Teaching writing to elementary students in grades 4–6: A national
survey. The Elementary School Journal, 110(4), 494–518. doi:10.1086/651193.
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,
297–310. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.297.
Graham, S. (2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta-analysis. In C. A. MacArthur,
S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (pp. 187–207). New York:
Guilford Press.
Graham, S., Capizzi, A., Harris, K. R., Hebert, M., & Morphy, P. (2014). Teaching writing to middle
school students: A national survey. Reading and Writing, 27(6), 1015–1042. doi:10.1007/s11145-
013-9495-7.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and
writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 3–12. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3501_2.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2013). Common core state standards, writing, and students with LD:
Recommendations. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(1), 28–37. doi:10.1111/ldrp.
12004.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., MacArthur, C., & Fink, B. (2002). Primary grade teachers’ theoretical
orientations concerning writing instruction: Construct validation and a nationwide survey.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(2), 147–166. doi:10.1006/ceps.2001.1085.

123
978 A. M. V. Simão et al.

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Santangelo, T. (2015). Research-based writing practices and the common
core: Meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. Elementary School Journal, 115(4), 498–522. doi:10.1086/
681964.
Graham, S., MacArthur, C. A., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.). (2013). Best Practices in Writing Instruction. New
York: Guilford Press.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007a). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007b). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescent
middle and high school. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellence in Education.
Hooper, S. R., Knuth, S. B., Yerby, D. C., & Anderson, K. L. (2009). A review of science supported
writing instruction with implementation in mind. In S. Rosenfield & V. Berninger (Eds.),
Implementing evidence-based academic interventions in school settings (pp. 49–83). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Kaplan, A., Lichtinger, E., & Gorodetsky, M. (2009). Achievement goal orientations and self-regulation
in writing: An integrative perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 51–69. doi:10.
1037/a0013200.
Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing
Research, 1(1), 1–26.
Kiuhara, S. A., Graham, S., & Hawken, L. S. (2009). Teaching writing to high school students: A national
survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 136–160. doi:10.1037/a0013097.
Kleiman, A. B. (2006). Professores e agentes de letramento: Identidade e posicionamento social.
[Teachers as literacy agents: Identity and social position] Revista filologia e linguı́stica portuguesa,
(vol. 8, pp. 409–424). Retrieved from http://www.revistas.usp.br/flp/article/view/59763/62872.
Malpique, A., & Veiga Simão, A. M. V. (2012). Cinderela e o sapato de cristal: Ensinando estratégias de
autorregulação para a composição escrita [Cinderella’s crystal slipper: Teaching self-regulated
strategies for writing]. In A. M. V. Veiga Simão, L. M. B. Frison, & M. H. M. B. Abrahão (Eds.),
Autorregulação da aprendizagem e narrativas autobiográficas: Epistemologia e práticas (pp.
155–178). Porto Alegre: EDIPUCRS.
Malpique, A. A., & Veiga Simão, A. M. (2015). Assessing self-regulated strategies for school writing:
Cross-cultural validation of a triadic measure. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(2),
141–153. doi:10.1177/0734282914547873.
Malpique, A. A., & Veiga Simão, A. M. (2015). Argumentative writing by junior high-school students:
Discourse knowledge and writing performance. Infancia y Aprendizaje. doi:10.1080/02103702.
2015.1111609.
Marcuschi, L. (2008). Processos de produção textual [Text production processes]. Produção textual,
análise de gêneros e compreensão [Text production, genre analysis and comprehension] (pp.
49–144). São Paulo: Parábola Editorial.
Ministry of Education. (2005). Plano Nacional de Leitura [National Plan for Reading] Decree-Law No.
1081, December, 22, 2005. Retrieved from http://legislacao.min-edu.pt/np4/np3content/?newsId=
1255&fileName=despacho_conjunto_1081_2005.pdf.
Ministry of Education and Culture. (2011). Plano Nacional da Leitura e do Livro [National Plan for
Reading and for the Book] Decree-Law No. 7.559, September, 10, 2011 Retrieved from http://www.
cultura.gov.br/documents/10883/1171222/DECRETO?PNLL.pdf/e08a2c1b-fff4-4109-be45-
5ea5190b6f2f.
Moon, B. R. (2012). Remembering rhetoric: Recalling a tradition of explicit instruction in writing.
English in Australia, 47(1), 37–52.
Moon, B. R. (2014). The literacy skills of secondary teaching undergraduates: Results of diagnostic
testing and a discussion of findings. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(12), 110–130.
doi:10.14221/ajte.2014v39n12.8.
Myhill, D. (2005). Prior knowledge and the (re)production of school written genres. In T. Kostouli (Ed.),
Writing in Context(s): Textual Practices and Learning Processes in Sociocultural Settings (Vol. 15,
pp. 117–136). Berlin, US: Springer (Studies in writing).
Myhill, D., & Fisher, R. (2010). Editorial: Writing development: Cognitive, sociocultural, linguistic
perspectives. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(1), 1–3. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01428.x.
Peterson, S. S., & McClay, J. (2014). A national study of teaching and assessing writing in Canadian
middle grades classrooms. McGill Journal of Education/Revue des sciences de l’éducation de
McGill, 49(1), 17–39. doi:10.7202/1025770ar.

123
Teaching writing to middle school students in Portugal… 979

Pressley, M., Rankin, J., & Yokoi, L. (1996). A survey of instructional practices of primary grade teachers
nominated as effective in promoting literacy. Elementary School Journal, 96, 363–384.
Ryan, M., & Barton, G. (2014). The spatialized practices of teaching writing in Australian elementary
schools: Diverse students shaping discoursal selves. Research in the Teaching of English, 48(3),
303–328.
Schultz, K., & Fecho, B. (2000). Society’s child: Social context and writing development. Educational
Psychologist, 35(1), 51–62. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3501_6.
Sousa, D. H., Ferreira, M. A., Castanheira, M. T., Pereira, S., & Lourenço, V. (2010). Projectos testes
intermédios, Relatório 2010. [Mid-Term Evaluation Project: 2010 Report]. Lisbon: GAVE.
Sousa, D. H., Ferreira, M. A., Romão, R. B., Pereira, S., & Lourenço, V. (2013). Projetos testes
intermédios: Relatório 2012 [Mid-Term Evaluation Project: 2012 Report]. Lisbon: GAVE.
Ulusoy, M., & Dedeoglu, H. (2011). Content area reading and writing: Practices and beliefs. Australian
Journal of Teacher Education, 36(4), 1–17. doi:10.14221/ajte.2011v36n4.1.
Veiga Simão, A. M., & Frison, L. (2013). Autorregulação da aprendizagem: abordagens teóricas e
desafios para as práticas em contextos educativos [Self-regulated learning: Theoretical perspectives
and challenges for practice in educational settings]. Cadernos de Educação FaE/PPGE/UFPel, 45,
02–20.
Wiebe Berry, R. A. (2006). Beyond strategies: Teacher beliefs and writing instruction in two primary
inclusion classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(1), 11–24. doi:10.1177/
00222194060390010301.
Wood, C., & Connelly, V. (2009). Contemporary perspectives on reading and spelling. London:
Routledge.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive
perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(1), 73–101. doi:10.1006/ceps.1997.0919.

123