ResumenEn este artículo se propone un sistema de análisis de la práctica educativa que tiene en cuenta tres dimensiones (cómo, qué y quién) y distintas unidades de análisis (sesiones de clase, actividades típicas de aula, episodios, ciclos). Las tres dimensiones de análisis nos permiten además revisar las distintas propuestas que se han ido planteando al respecto según cuál es su foco: los contenidos desarrollados en la interacción (qué), el modo como se desarrolla (cómo) o el grado de responsabilidad alcanzado por los alumnos (quién). El sistema de análisis se describe con algún detalle a través de algunos ejemplos y se muestran el tipo de resultados que cabe obtener según los estudios que hemos venido llevando a cabo. Finalmente, se examinan algunas cuestiones que aún requieren alcanzar un consenso entre los investigadores: el problema de la unidad de análisis, el papel de los conocimientos sobre las tareas, la distinción entre análisis del discurso y análisis de la práctica educativa. Palabras clave: Análisis del discurso, análisis de la práctica educativa, mediaciones, cognición fría y cálida. What, how and who: Three dimensions to analyse educational practice AbstractThe paper proposes a system for analysing educational practice based on three dimensions (how, what and who) and different units of analyses (class sessions, typical classroom activities, episodes, cycles). The three analysis dimensions also allow us to review the different proposals put forth taking their approach into account: the contents developed in interaction (what dimension), they way interaction develops (how dimension), and the degree of responsibility reached by students (who dimension). The proposed analysis system is described with some detail using various examples, and the type of results that may be obtained based on our work is shown. Finally, three issues that remain under discussion are reviewed: the unit of analysis problem, the role of cognitive analysis of academic tasks, the distinction between discourse analysis and educational practice analysis.

Expository texts contain rhetorical devices that help readers to connect text ideas (within a text and with prior knowledge) and to monitor reading. Rhetorical competence addresses readers' skill in detecting, understanding and using these devices. We examined the contribution of rhetorical competence to reading comprehension on two groups of 11-to 13-year-old students: low-level (Study 1) and high-level (Study 2) reading skills. The measures of rhetorical competence assessed students' knowledge about anaphors, organisational signals and refutations. In both studies, each measure of rhetorical competence contributed significantly to reading comprehension once prior knowledge, working memory and decoding skills were controlled for. This contribution was higher in Study 2. Furthermore, whereas in Study 1, each measure of rhetorical competence had a unique contribution to reading comprehension when controlling for the other measures of rhetorical competence, in Study 2, only the knowledge about organisational signals and refutations had this unique contribution.Understanding a text involves, among other processes, (a) connecting text ideas, (b) integrating text information with prior knowledge and (c) monitoring the former two processes (Graesser,

A partir del estudio de los intercambios orales del profesor como experto lector y el alumno como aprendiz se caracterizó el tipo de acompañamiento en la actividades de lectura colectiva  como construcción conjunta de significado en las asignaturas de Lenguaje, Historia y Ciencias Naturales en 3º, 5º y 7º de primaria. Se utilizó un sistema analítico de la práctica de Sánchez et al. (2008) para describir la organización general de episodios y las ayudas en los episodios de interpretación según su función: regulatoria, de elaboración o de retroalimentación  y según el nivel de autonomía propiciado. Los resultados muestran organización de episodios sencilla, escasa presencia de ayudas regulatorias y moderado número de ayudas internas y de feedback, con carácter no invasivo en el episodio de interpretación. Se observan diferencias solo por nivel y no por asignatura. Se discuten las implicaciones para la innovación y formación  de profesores.

No abstract

Learning from expository texts demands the processing of metatextual cues (rhetorical devices) and the activating of reading strategies. The main objective of this study was to examine whether profiting from written metatextual cues to launch reading strategies needs higher level of rhetorical competence than profiting from oral cues. Specifically, this study addresses two questions: (1) Is there a gap between the sensitivity to oral versus written metatextual cues depending on the student’s reading skill level? (2) Do the reader’s rhetorical competence, general reading comprehension, and decoding levels interact with the processing of each type of metatextual cue? Three hundred sixty‐seven students (11–13 years old) summarized an expository text after reading it under one of the following four conditions: with written cues, with oral cues, with both cues combined, or with no cues. The less skilled readers who received oral or combined cues provided better summaries (they selected and organized the main ideas better) than the less skilled readers who received written cues or no cues. However, the performance of the more skilled readers was equal under the conditions with written cues, oral cues, and combined cues; these three groups outperformed the readers from the no‐cues condition group. A multicategorical moderator analysis showed that following written cues demanded higher levels of general comprehension and rhetorical competence than following oral and combined cues. These data confirm that rhetorical competence is a specific capability for processing, especially written metatextual cues, and for overcoming the gap between the sensitivity to oral versus written cues.