The structural relationship between writing attitude and writing achievement in first and third grade students

Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 516–536 www.elsevier.com/locate/cedpsych

The structural relationship between writing attitude and writing achievement in first and third grade students q Steve Graham

a,*

, Virginia Berninger b, Weihua Fan

c

a

Vanderbilt University, Peabody Box 328, Nashville, TN 37203, USA University of Washington, School Psychology, Seattle, WA, USA University of Maryland, Educational Measurement and Statistics, College Park, MD, USA b

c

Available online 14 February 2007

Abstract This study tested three models of the structural relationship between the writing achievement of primary grade students and their attitude towards writing (defined here as an affective disposition involving how the act of writing makes the author feel, ranging from happy to unhappy). The three models tested were: (a) writing attitude influences writing achievement in a unidirectional manner, (b) writing achievement influences writing attitude in a unidirectional manner, and (c) the effects of writing attitude and achievement are bidirectional and reciprocal. The model that best fit the data was based on the assumption that writing attitude influences writing achievement. In addition, the direct path between attitude and achievement in this model was statistically significant. Although third grade students were better writers than first grade students, there was no statistical difference in younger and older students’ attitude towards writing. In addition, girls were more positive about writing than boys, but there was no statistical difference in their writing achievement related to gender. This research extends models based on the cognitive and language processes of writing to include the role of attitude, which is an affective component of motivation.  2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Writing attitude; Writing achievement

q This cross-site collaboration was supported, in part, by Grant No. H324V980001 from U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs and by Grant No. HD25858-15 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) at the University of Washington. * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Graham).

0361-476X/$ - see front matter  2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.01.002

S. Graham et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 516–536

517

1. Introduction Much of the writing research conducted in the last 35 years focused on either the cognitive aspects of composing or the socio-cultural context for writing (Graham, 2006; Prior, 2006; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1986; Schultz & Fecho, 2000). During the last decade, however, there has been an increased interest in the role of motivation in writing. Recent models of the writing process include motivational variables (e.g., see, Hayes, 1996; Zimmerman & Reisemberg, 1997) as well as self-efficacy variables (Klassen, 2002; Pajares, 2003). The role of topic interest is also being considered in the study of writing achievement (Albin, Benton, & Khramtsova, 1996; Hidi & Boscolo, in press). The accumulating evidence is consistent with the position that motivation is a critical catalyst in academic learning in general as well as writing in particular (Alexander, 1998; Alexander, Graham, & Harris, 1998; Corno & Rohrkemper, 1985; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994). In a recent review of the literature, Graham (2006) proposed and reviewed evidence to support four working proposals or hypotheses: (a) skilled writers are more motivated than less skilled writers, (b) developing writers become increasingly motivated with age and schooling, (d) individual differences in motivation predict writing performance, and (d) instructional procedures designed to improve motivation enhance writing performance. Overall, the review of available evidence supported the claim that motivation shapes writing development (Graham, 2006). However, given the limited evidence collected to date, additional research is needed to evaluate whether these four proposals will be supported for different aspects of writing motivation such as self-efficacy, interests, apprehension (avoidance behaviors), attitude (continuum of positive to negative affect towards writing), and attributions for success. The conclusion that motivation shapes writing development must be viewed as tentative for two reasons. First, there was limited data for two of the proposals examined. Only a few studies examined if there were motivational differences between more and less skilled writers (first proposal) or if motivation instruction improved writing performance (fourth proposal). Nevertheless, the available evidence supported these two proposals, as skilled writers scored higher on measures of motivation than less skilled writers (Graham, Schwartz, & MacArthur, 1993; Shell, Colvin, & Bruning, 1995; Vrugt, Oort, & Zeeberg, 2002), and instructional procedures designed to enhance motivation had a positive impact on students’ writing (Schunk & Swartz, 1993). Second, evidence examining the proposition that motivation for writing increases with age and schooling (second proposal) was mixed. For example, Knudson (1991, 1992) found that attitudes toward writing declined (grew more negative) with age, whereas Graham et al. (1993) found no difference in the writing attitudes of younger and older students. Likewise, in his review of literature, Pajares (2003) reported that self-efficacy for writing declined with age in some studies and increased in others. In terms of the proposition that motivation predicts writing performance (third proposal), the evidence generally supported this assumption for a variety of motivational measures, including attitude, writing apprehension, interest, and self-efficacy (see for instance Albin et al., 1996; Knudson, 1995; Madigan, Linton, & Johnston, 1996; Pajares, 2003). In this research we focus on attitude towards writing, one aspect of motivation, to test two of the working proposals or hypotheses outlined by Graham (2006). First, we examined the relationship between attitude towards writing and writing performance (third proposal). Second, we examined the proposition that attitude towards writing improves with schooling (second proposal).

518

S. Graham et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 516–536

Attitude is generally defined as ‘‘a learned predisposition to respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner with respect to a given object’’ (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, p. 6). Our conceptualization of attitude in this study was consistent with the perspective of previous researchers (Alexander & Filler, 1976; Kear, Coffman, McKenna, & Ambrosio, 2000) that this construct can be conceptualized along a continuum with negative and positive extremes. Operationally, we defined writing attitude as an affective disposition involving how the act of writing makes the author feel, ranging from happy to unhappy. In terms of contemporary views of motivation (Anderman & Wolters, 2006), attitude is an affective motivational state. Roseburg (1998) identified three levels of affect: (1) traits which are personality-like characteristics that make up a person’s general temperament; (2) moods which are long lasting, but transitory, affective states; and (3) emotions which are short-lived, situationally specific, affective states (Anderman & Wolters, 2006). Perkun, Goetz, Titz, and Perry (2002) further indicated that affective states can occur as one contemplates doing a particular task, while one does the task, or retrospectively. Writing attitude, as conceptualized in the present study, did not represent a personality trait or a short-lived, situationally specific state. It was most closely, but not perfectly, aligned with a mood. Students attitude towards writing are less stable than a personality trait and more subject to change, but more stable than a situationally driven and short-lived emotion. The present writing attitude measure involved a retrospective state, as it was administered after students completed the writing tasks, and asked students to indicate how they felt, ranging from happy to unhappy, when they engaged in writing at various times, including at home and at school. Theoretically, attitude may influence writing ability through its impact on factors, such as cognitive engagement (McKenna, Kear, & Ellsworth, 1995). For example, students with a more favorable attitude are likely to write more often and expend greater effort when composing than students with a less favorable attitude, leading to individual differences in writing achievement. In addition, affective states may have an impact on the types of strategies that students use when writing (Anderman & Wolters, 2006). For example, a negative affect may trigger the use of rigid and less-adaptive strategies, whereas a positive affect has been associated with more creative and adaptive forms of cognitive engagement (Isen, 1999). Finally, Perkun (1992) argues that a negative affect requires more cognitive resources than a positive one, leaving fewer resources available for completing a task. Accordingly, a negative attitude towards writing may lead to less efficient processing during writing. This may be particularly disruptive for writing, as it is a challenging task, requiring considerable effort and the effective management of a variety of cognitive resources (see Graham, 2006). Even though children’s attitude towards literacy skills has been considered important for decades (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), attitudes are not typically included in current conceptualizations of motivation in general or motivation as it relates to school learning in particular (e.g., Anderman & Wolters, 2006). This may be due to reductionist views that have separated the study of affect, cognition, and conation (will) into separate categories, with motivation falling primarily within the realm of conation (Anderman & Wolters, 2006; Perkun, 1992). In any event, the relationship between attitude and writing achievement has received relatively little attention in either the educational or motivational literature. During the 1990’s, for example, the only investigator who systematically examined children’s attitude towards writing was Knudson (1991, 1992, 1993, 1995). In a study involving 430 first through sixth grade students, she found that attitude for writing accounted for about 4% of the variance in students’ writing quality, after the effects of grade were first controlled (Knudson, 1995).

S. Graham et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 516–536

519

With Knudson’s scale, students responded to 19 items by indicating how often (almost always to almost never) something occurred, such as: ‘‘I would rather write than listen to the radio;’’ ‘‘I would like to have more time in school to write;’’ ‘‘I am a good writer;’’ and ‘‘I write notes to my friends.’’ A factor analysis conducted by the author (Knudson, 1992) with grade 1–3 children suggested that it measures four factors: preference for writing (items primarily assessed if students’ prefer writing to other activities), positive view of writing in school (items were varied, assessing importance of writing in school, writing competence, desire to write more and do certain kinds of writing), positive evaluation of student as writer (items primarily assessed students’ self-efficacy as a writer), and letter/note writing (items evaluated if students engaged in writing notes or letters to others). Thus, Knudson’s scale was not a unidimensional instrument (although she treated it as such), and it appears to measure constructs other than attitude, such as self-efficacy. The items included in the current study differed considerably from the Knudson items, as they all focused on how the writer felt, happy to unhappy, when they wrote for different purposes and in different places (i.e., home and school). Also in contrast to Knudson, we used a structural equation modeling approach to examine the relationship between writing attitude and writing achievement for typically developing children in the primary grades. Specifically, we tested three models of the structural relationship between writing attitude and writing achievement. Model 1 was consistent with Graham’s (2006) conclusion that writing attitude influences writing achievement (see Fig. 1). This model had a direct path from writing attitude to writing achievement. Model 2 was consistent with the view that writing performances influences writing attitude (see Fig. 2). This model is based on the assumption that students form positive or negative attitudes toward writing as a consequence of how well they write (Kear et al., 2000). With this model, there was a direct path from writing achievement to writing attitude. In Model 3 (see Fig. 3), the relationship between attitude and writing performance were viewed as bi-directional with reciprocal influences, with attitude influencing achievement and the results of achievement influencing attitude (see, for example, the model by Mathewson, 1994). With this model, there was a direct path from attitude to achievement and vice versa (Figs. 4 and 5). We also examined Graham’s (2006) proposition that attitude towards writing improves with schooling (proposal 2). In the previous studies by Knudson, this proposition was not supported with elementary age children (Knudson, 1991, 1992, 1993). In contrast to previous studies that employed a univariate approach to data analysis, we used a multiple-indicator multiple cause structural equation modeling approach to determine if there were statistically significant differences between first and third grade students for the mean latent factors for writing attitude and achievement. We also used this same approach to compare the writing attitude and achievement of girls and boys. Knudson (1993) reported that girls have a more positive attitude towards writing than boys, and girls tend to outperform boys on a variety of writing measures (see Berninger & Fuller, 1992; Walberg & Ethington, 1991). 2. Methods 2.1. Participants A sample of 128 first grade and 113 third grade children attending schools in a large metropolitan school district in the Northwest participated in the study. At the first grade level there were 70 girls and 58 boys, whereas at the third grade level there were 57 girls

520

S. Graham et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 516–536

Writing at home for fun Writing in school during free time Writing during summer vacation Writing Attitude

Writing vs. playing

Writing in school

Writing at home during free time Writing time in school

WIAT-2

Writing quality Writing Achievement Number of long words Length of correct word sequence Fig. 1. (Model 1) Structural model of the relationship between writing attitude and achievement with a direct path from writing attitude to writing achievement.

and 56 boys. Sixty-five percent of the sample were White, 23% Asian, 8% Black, 1% Hispanic, and 1% Native American. The sample was recruited by sending a letter, announcing the opportunity to participate in a research study, to all parents of children in the district who were entering first grade or third grade in the fall. Interested parents were asked to contact the research coordinator of the project, who explained the study and obtained informed consent from those parents who decided to enroll their child and bring their child to the a university setting to complete a series of assessments. None of the children were in the same classroom, and only a few students were from

S. Graham et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 516–536

521

Writing –at home for fun Writing in school during free time Writing during summer vacation Writing Attitude

Writing vs. playing

Writing in school

Writing at home during free time Writing time in school

WIAT-2

Writing quality Writing Achievement Proportion of long words Length of correct word sequence Fig. 2. (Model 2) Structural model of the relationship between writing attitude and achievement with a direct path from writing achievement to writing attitude.

the same school. According to the children’s parents, writing instruction occurred in each child’s classroom. Nevertheless, we were unable to collect information on how writing was taught. Mother’s and Father’s educational level were used as indices of socioeconomic status (cf. Greenbaum, Graham, & Scales, 1995; Wagner, Spratt, Gal, & Paris, 1989). Mother’s educational level was as follows: .4% completed less than high school, 7% completed high school, 12% completed high school plus some community college or vocational education, 49% attended college as an undergraduate, and 32% completed some postgraduate study (2% did not answer this question). Father’s educational level

522

S. Graham et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 516–536

Writing at home for fun Writing in school during free time Writing during summer vacation Writing Attitude

Writing vs. playing

Writing in school

Writing at home during free time Writing time in school

WIAT-2

Writing quality Writing Achievement Proportion of long words Length of correct word sequence Fig. 3. (Model 3) Structural model of the relationship between writing attitude and achievement with bidirectional paths between writing attitude and writing achievement.

was as follows: 1% completed less than high school, 9% completed high school, 11% completed high school plus some community college or vocational education, 38% attended college as an undergraduate, and 34% completed some postgraduate study (7% did not answer this question). As a group, the participants’ writing skills were within the average range on the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-2 (2002) (WIAT-2; The Psychological Corporation, 2002). The mean standard score for this test is 100, and the standard deviation is 15. Participants’ average standard score for Written Expression was 104.2 (SD = 15.1).

S. Graham et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 516–536

523

Writing at home for fun Writing in school during free time Writing during summer vacation

Writing Attitude

Writing vs. playing Writing in school Writing at home during free time

Grade Writing time in school

WIAT-2

Writing quality Writing Achievem ent

Proportion of long words Length of correct word

Fig. 4. Structural model of the relationship between grade, writing attitude and achievement with a direct path from writing attitude to writing achievement.

2.2. Procedures Each child wrote a composition on topics from the PAL Compositional Fluency subtest (Berninger, in press) and completed a survey assessing their attitude toward writing. In addition, participants completed the WIAT-2 Written Expression subtest. Testing took place in a quiet room. Each child was assessed individually by trained research staff. The attitude survey was administered after the writing tasks. While it is possible that the administration order influenced students’ responses on the writing survey, we think that this is unlikely for two reasons. One, we provided a break between the administration of the writing measures and the attitude survey. Two, the items on the attitude survey did not directly refer to the writing measures that students

524

S. Graham et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 516–536

Writing at home for fun Writing in school during free time Writing during summer vacation

Writing Attitude

Writing vs. playing Writing in school Writing at home during free time

Gender Writing time in school

WIAT-2

Writing quality Writing Achievem ent

Proportion of long words Length of correct word

Fig. 5. Structural model of the relationship between gender, writing attitude, and writing achievement with a direct path from writing attitude to writing achievement.

completed as part of the experiment. Instead, the items asked students how they felt about writing in school and at home. The assessments are described below. 2.3. Measures 2.3.1. Written composition Because young children typically compose more about topics on which they are knowledgeable (McCutchen, 1986), we asked participants to write about an event that happened at school. To increase motivation (Graham, Harris, & Mason, 2005), children were provided with a choice of two events to write about. Thus, students were asked to complete the choice in the following frame and then continue writing about their choice: ‘‘One day

S. Graham et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 516–536

525

at school a [choose ‘‘surprising’’ or ‘‘funny’’] thing happened.’’ If the student was clearly off-task when the writing sample was collected, the examiner encouraged the child to continue writing. It was rarely necessary to prompt students to do this. Three measures were obtained for each student’s written composition. To assess the sophistication of the vocabulary that students used in their writing, the number of words that were 7 letters or longer were counted and then converted to proportions based on total number of words written. This vocabulary measure was based on the procedures used in the Contextual Vocabulary subtest of the Test of Written Language-2 (TOWL-2; Hammill & Larsen, 1988). Because more sophisticated vocabulary tends to be longer words, word length is used as a proxy for vocabulary. The only difference was that we corrected for story length by dividing total number of words 7 letters or longer by total number of words in the composition. Coefficient alpha for number of words that were 7 letters or longer on the TOWL-2 was .79, and test–retest reliability was .82. For the vocabulary measure, two graduate students majoring in education independently scored blinded copies of the children’s compositions, with one scoring all papers and the other scoring 50% of them (randomly selected). The scorers counted the total number of words and number of words 7 letters or longer. Reliability for each measure was .99 and .98, respectively. To calculate the proportion of long words, we used the transform function in SPSS to divide number of words 7 letters or longer by total number of words. The second measure was the average length of correct word sequences (referred to as length of correct word sequence). A correct word sequence was defined as any two adjacent, correctly spelled words that were semantically and syntactically acceptable within the context of the writing sample to a native speaker of English (Espin, De La Paz, Scierka, & Roelofs, 2005, p. 210). In addition, punctuation and capitalization were also taken into account in scoring if the word sequence was correct. Thus, correct word sequence is a complex measure that takes into account meaning, syntax, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization. The measure we used in this study, length of correct word sequence, was calculated by determining the average length of correct word sequences that occurred in sequence before an incorrect word sequence occurred. Two graduate students majoring in education scored all compositions for length of correct word sequence. One scored all of the papers, whereas the other scored 50% (randomly selected). Prior to scoring compositions, they reviewed and discussed the rules for determining a correct word sequence. Next, they practiced applying the procedures until they could score 15 papers consecutively with a reliability of .85. Once they met the criteria, they independently scored their respective compositions. Interrater reliability between the two examiners was .99. The third measure assessed the overall quality of compositions. Writing quality was scored using a traditional holistic rating scale (see Cooper, 1977). Examiners were asked to read each composition attentively to obtain a general impression of writing quality. The paper was then scored on a 7-point scale, with a score of 1 representing the lowest quality of writing and a score of 7 representing the highest quality. Examiners were told that ideation, organization, grammar, sentence structure, and aptness of word choice should all be taken into account in forming a judgment about overall quality and that no one factor should receive undue weight. Prior to scoring, all compositions were typed and spelling, capitalization, and punctuation errors were corrected. Examiners were provided with a representative paper (or anchor point) for a low-, middle-, and high-score. These anchor points were taken from writing samples produced by

526

S. Graham et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 516–536

over 200 first through third grade students. The anchor points were developed by having 3 former elementary school teachers select the best, average, and poorest quality papers on the basis of the scoring criteria described in the paragraph above. The two examiners who scored the compositions were both former elementary grade school teachers. To train them to use the rating scale described above, they first discussed the distinguishing features of each of the anchor points. They then practiced applying the scale to a series of papers that varied in terms of their overall quality. After each examiner independently scored a composition during practice, they compared scores and resolved any differences through discussion. Training continued until they assigned scores that differed by no more than 1 point on 10 consecutive papers. Once the criteria were met, they independently scored all of the papers written by the participants in this study. Interrater reliability between the two examiners was .93. 2.3.2. Attitude toward writing Students were asked to respond to 7 questions designed to measure their attitude toward writing. Each question began with the stem: ‘‘How do you feel’’ and included: ‘‘about writing for fun at home’’, ‘‘when you write in school during free time’’, ‘‘about writing during summer vacation’’, ‘‘about writing instead of playing’’, ‘‘about writing in school’’, ‘‘about spending free time writing’’, and ‘‘when it’s time for writing at school.’’ Each question was read to the child and students indicated their attitude by marking one of four images of Garfield the Cat, ranging from very happy (score of 4) to very unhappy (score of 1). The items and the method of quantifying student responses (the four images of Garfield) were adapted from a scale for measuring attitudes toward reading developed by McKenna et al. (1995). A factor analysis involving the seven items yielded a single factor with an eigen value above 1.0 (eigen value = 3.71). This factor accounted for 52% of the variance and all 7 items loaded at .63 or higher on this single factor. Internal consistency reliability, calculated with Cronbach’s alpha, was .85. The correlations between items are presented in Table 2. As can be seen, correlations between items ranged from .34 to .68, with the median correlation equal to .43. Because the correlations between items were small to moderate and the items assessed students’ attitude to writing at different times and locations, scores for each of the 7 items (instead of a single score for all items) were used as indicators for the writing attitude construct (see Section 4). Before administering the 7 writing attitude items, the examiner told the student, ‘‘I am interested in how you and other kids feel about writing. So, I am going to ask you some questions. This is not a test or anything that you need to worry about. Just try to answer my questions as honestly as you can.’’ Next, the examiner drew the child’s attention to the four Garfields under a practice item and discussed how each Garfield was feeling, starting with the image that was very happy (score of 4) and preceding sequentially through the other Garfields, ending with the one that was very unhappy (score of 1). The students were then told that the examiner was going to ask them some questions and that they would ‘‘circle the Garfield that describes how you feel’’ about that question. Then, the child completed two practice items: one asking about how you feel about eating spinach for breakfast, and the other asking about how you feel about playing with toys. None of the children experienced difficulty using the Garfield scale to answer these two practice items.

S. Graham et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 516–536

527

2.3.3. Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-2 Students were administered the Written Expression subtest from the WIAT- 2. The Written Expression subtest has five sections: alphabet Writing, which is only given in grades K to 2, (writing the lower-case letters of the alphabet from memory), Word Fluency (generate and write words from a designated category), Sentence (combine kernal sentences into a single sentence), Paragraph (composition scored on basis of mechanics related to spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, quality of organization or text, and quality of vocabulary and content), and Essay (only administered to children in grades 7 and up). Raw scores from these various sections are combined to create a composite score that is translated via norms into a standard score for age. Grade-based reliability for this subtest for first and third grade children are .91 and .78, respectively. Test–retest reliability is .87.

3. Data analysis The structural relation between students’ writing attitude and writing achievement was examined using a structural equation modeling (SEM) approach (Bollen, 1989; Kline, 1998). We used SEM to test three different models. The measurement model was the same in each case, but the structural relationship between the two latent factors, writing attitude and achievement, differed (See Figs. 1–3). The first model had a direct path from writing attitude fi writing achievement, the second model had a direct path from writing achievement fi writing attitude, whereas the third model involved a direct path from writing attitude fi writing achievement and from writing achievement fi writing attitude. SEM was also used to examine if there were mean differences between grade 1 and grade 3 students on the latent factors of writing attitude and writing achievement (see Aiken, Stein, & Bentler, 1994; Green & Thompson, 2003; Hancock, 1997 on the use of SEM for this purpose). We also examined if such differences existed between girls and boys. We tested these differences using a multiple-indicator multiple-cause (MIMIC) modeling SEM approach. With the MIMIC model, the measured variables include not only indicators of the latent factors, but also a coded variable for the group comparison (e.g., first grade versus third grade). The 7 questions designed to assess students’ attitude towards writing were used as indicators for the writing attitude construct. These included students’ scores on the following items: writing for fun at home, spending free time at school writing, writing during summer vacation, writing instead of playing, writing in school, spending free time at home writing, and writing time at school. Four indicators were used for the writing achievement construct. These included students’ standard scores on the WIAT-2 Written Expression subtest as well as three measures from the composition each child wrote. The measures from the writing sample were writing quality, proportion of long words, and average length of correct word sequence. The covariance matrices for the 11 indicators presented above were used for all structural equation modeling in this paper. All analyses were conducted using the EQS 5.7b program (Bentler & Wu, 1995). A variety of global fit indices are available for assessing fit with this approach. We limited our focus to three indices: root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), and standardized root mean residual (SRMR). Hu and Bentler (1999) recommend joint criteria to retain a model, such as

528

S. Graham et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 516–536

CFI is greater than .96 and SRMR is less than or equal to .10, or RMSEA is less than or equal to .06 and SRMR is less than or equal to .10. Finally, across the entire dataset, there was very little missing data. When all variables were considered together, just 1% of the data were missing; the range for each variable was .4% to 2.4%. Mean imputation was used to deal with the missing data, under the assumption that data was missing at random. Table 1 includes the means and standard deviations for each observed variable for students in grade 1 and grade 3 as well as for girls and boys. Table 2 includes correlations among all observed variables to three decimal places. 4. Results 4.1. Models Of the three models tested, the model that specified a direct path from writing attitude to writing achievement fits the data well. Neither of the other two models, the one specifying a direct path from writing achievement to writing attitude (model 2) or the one specifying bi-directional paths between the two latent constructs (model 3), converged within 500 iterations, the maximum number of iterations that EQS allows. The observation that models 2 and 3 didn’t converge indicates that they have difficulty making the estimations. Both empirical research and anecdotal observation support the assertion that estimation difficulties frequently result from a highly misspecified model (e.g., Green, Thompson, & Poirier, 1999). Consequently, of the three models, model 1 yielded the best description of the data, as it provided a good fit with reasonable convergence. The results for model 1 are presented in Table 3 (see Model 1). The first column includes information describing the paths. To illustrate, writing attitude fi writing for fun at home represents the factor loading of writing for fun at home on the writing attitude factor. Likewise, writing attitude fi writing achievement represents the structural path Table 1 Means and standard deviations for all measures Measure

1. Writing at home for fun 2. Writing in school during free time 3. Writing during summer vacation 4. Writing vs. playing 5. Writing in school 6. Writing at home during free time 7. Writing time in school WIAT-2: Written Expression Writing quality Proportion of long words Length of correct word sequence

Grade one (n = 128)

Grade three (n = 113)

Male (n = 114)

Female (n = 127)

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

3.203 2.803 2.597 1.937 2.906 2.547 2.637 98.663 1.524 18.758 8.037

0.934 1.094 1.219 1.025 1.061 1.181 1.154 13.640 0.807 17.333 12.206

2.832 2.620 2.145 1.858 3.000 2.429 2.850 110.937 3.401 61.412 49.941

0.896 1.063 1.101 0.944 0.945 1.108 1.020 13.665 1.642 49.182 46.839

2.790 2.471 2.156 1.762 2.701 2.311 2.436 102.867 2.181 31.904 23.463

0.926 1.090 1.184 0.953 1.088 1.168 1.096 14.593 1.442 30.084 28.004

3.244 2.937 2.591 2.024 3.173 2.653 3.006 105.810 2.604 44.910 31.475

0.888 1.029 1.150 1.004 0.874 1.106 1.028 15.171 1.668 49.267 46.934

Note: The mean for the WIAT-2: Written Expression is 100 (SD = 15); the scale for the 7 writing attitude items (numbered in the table) ranged from 4 (the activity made me very happy) to 1 (the activity made me very unhappy).

Measure

1

2

3

1. Writing at home for fun– 2. Free in school during free time– 3. Writing during summer vacation 4. Writing vs. playing 5. Writing in school 6. Writing at home during free time 7. Writing time in school 8. WIAT-2: Written Expression 9. Writing quality 10. Proportion of long words 11. Length of correct word sequence 12. Grade 13. Gender

1 .446(**) .375(**)

4

5

6

1 .408(**)

1

.420(**) .481(**) .421(**)

.426(**) .530(**) .563(**)

.414(**) 0.035 0.057 0.087 0.063 .199(**) 244(**)

7

8

9

10

11

.423(**) .339(**) .397(**)

1 .456(**) .451(**)

1 .440(**)

1

.495(**) 0.105 0.087 0.104 0.076

.354(**) 0.028 0.023 0.029 0.03

.483(**) .130(*) .133(*) .136(*) .137(*)

.679(**) .178(**) .174(**) .160(*) .157(*)

.396(**) 0.037 0.119 0.12 0.088

1 .195(**) .232(**) .194(**) .185(**)

1 .478(**) .384(**) .448(**)

1 .858(**) .806(**)

1 .926(**)

1

0.085 .215(**)

.191(**) .184(**)

0.04 .133(*)

0.047 .235(**)

0.051 .149(*)

0.097 .260(**)

.411(**) 0.099

.596(**) .134(*)

.511(**) .156(*)

.534(**) 0.102

Note: * indicates that correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) and ** indicates that correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

12

13

1 —

1

S. Graham et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 516–536

Table 2 Correlations among all measures

529

530

S. Graham et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 516–536

Table 3 Standardized path coefficients and test statistics (z) for the initial model, model grade and model gender Path

Writing Attitude fi Writing at home for fun– Writing Attitude fi Writing in school during free time Writing Attitude fi Writing during summer vacation Writing Attitude fi Writing vs. playing Writing Attitude fi Writing in school Writing Attitude fi Writing at home during free time– Writing Attitude fi Writing time in school Writing Achievement fi WIAT-2 Writing Achievement fi Writing quality Writing Achievement fi Proportion of long words Writing Achievement fi Length of correct word sequence Writing Attitude fi Writing Achievement Grade fi Writing Attitude Grade fi Writing Achievement Gender fi Writing Attitude Gender fi Writing Achievement

Model 1

Model on grade

Model on gender

Value

z

Value

z

Value

z

0.621 0.714 0.534 0.646 0.768 0.646 0.741 0.421 0.872 0.983 0.942 0.186 — — — —

— 8.785 7.009 8.161 9.234 8.161 9.02 — 6.861 7.044 6.993 2.451 — — — —

0.629 0.717 0.54 0.648 0.761 0.65 0.733 0.438 0.877 0.974 0.947 0.217 0.056 0.568 — —

— 8.923 7.133 8.269 9.302 8.284 9.064 — 7.182 7.372 7.33 3.237 0.81 6.103 — —

0.625 0.713 0.535 0.641 0.769 0.642 0.744 0.42 0.871 0.983 0.941 0.155 — — 0.306 0.102

— 8.844 7.057 8.167 9.312 8.175 9.109 — 6.842 7.025 6.973 2.003 — — 4.279 1.466

Note: Dashes for paths from latent factor to observed variable indicate that values in nonstandardized solution fixed to 1 to scale metric of latent variable. Dashed for paths from dummy variable to latent factor indicates that the values don’t exist.

from the writing attitude factor to writing achievement factor. The second column provides the standardized value for each path, and the third column presents the associated z statistics. Those z values of 1.96 or larger (Bentler & Wu, 1995) are statistically significant (p < .05). As shown in Table 3, model 1 provided a good description of the data. The standardized values of the path between all observed variables (e.g., writing for fun at home) and their corresponding factors (e.g., writing attitude factor) were significant (all z’s exceeded 1.96). This indicates that all observed variables had a significantly positive effect on their associated latent factors. The statistics for the three global fit indices (CFI, SRMR, and RMSEA) also provided evidence that model 1 provided a fairly good description of the data (using joint criteria recommended by Hu & Bentler, 1999). CFI was .954; SRMR was .054; and RMSEA was .081. As a result, the parameter estimates of the model were interpretable. Of greatest theoretical interest in Table 3 was the path between writing attitude and writing achievement. This path examines if the latent factor for writing attitudes, derived from the 7 writing attitude items, predicts the latent factor for writing achievement, derived from the 4 writing measures. As predicted, the directional path from writing attitude to writing achievement was statistically significant with a nonstandardized parameter estimate of 2.019. Thus, students who were more positive about writing had higher writing achievement. Sixty four percent of the variance was explained by the writing attitude and writing achievement measures. 4.1.1. Grade and gender In addition to testing the three hypothesized models of the structural relation between writing attitude and writing achievement, we were also interested in examining if there

S. Graham et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 516–536

531

were mean differences between younger (grade 1) and older students (grade 3) as well as girls and boys on the latent factors of writing attitude and writing achievement. To examine if such differences existed, we applied MIMIC to model 1 (it provided the best fit to the data). A dummy coded variable was added to this model. The dummy coded variable (e.g., grade) had direct paths to each of the latent factors (i.e., writing attitude and writing achievement), allowing us to test for differences in factor means. To compare latent factor means between grade 1 and grade 3 students, the dummy variable grade was included as part of model 1 (see Fig. 2). We coded 0 for all students in grade 1, and 1 for all students in grade 3. The results of the MIMIC analysis showed that this model provided a fairly good description of the data (using joint criteria recommended by Hu & Bentler, 1999). CFI was .93; RMSEA was .10 (90% C.I. of 0.08–0.12), and SRMR was .06. Thus, the parameter estimates of the model were interpretable. In addition, the standardized value of the path between all observed variables (e.g., writing for fun at home) and their corresponding latent factors (e.g., writing attitude factor) was relatively high and significant (all z’s exceeded 1.96), indicating that all observed variables had a significantly positive effect on their associated latent factors (see Table 3; Model on Grade). As in the previous analysis of model 1, the path from writing attitude to writing achievement was also statistically significant with a nonstandardized path coefficient of 2.426. To determine if there were mean differences in latent factors by grade, we examined the nonstandardized parameter estimate between grade (dummy coded variable) and writing attitude as well as the nonstandardized parameter estimate between grade and writing achievement. They were .066 and 7.438, respectively. The Wald z test (Bentler, 1991) was statistically significant for factor mean difference on writing achievement, z = 6.103, p < .01, but statistically nonsignificant on writing attitude, z = .810, p > .05. Accordingly, students in grade 3 scored, on average 7.438 higher on the writing achievement factor than grade 1 students. However, there was no significant difference on the writing attitude factor between grade 1 and grade 3 students. For the analysis involving gender (see Fig. 3), boys were coded as 0 and girls as 1. The results of the MIMIC analysis showed that the parameter estimates were interpretable (using joint criteria recommended by Hu & Bentler, 1999). CFI was .954; RMSEA was .074 (90% C.I of 0.056–0.091); and SRMR of .052. The standardized weights between the measured variables and the factors were large and statistically significant (see Table 3; Model on Gender), indicating that all observed variables had a significantly positive effect on their associated latent factors. Likewise, the same structural relation between writing attitude and writing achievement that was found in the previous analysis was evident here as well. To determine if there were mean differences in latent factors by gender, we examined the nonstandardized parameter estimate between gender (dummy coded variable) and writing attitude as well as the nonstandardized parameter estimate between gender and writing achievement. They were .356 and 1.274, respectively. The Wald z test was statistically significant for factor mean difference on writing attitude, z = 4.279, p < .01, but not on writing achievement, z = 1.466, p > .05. Accordingly, girls scored .472 higher on the writing attitude factor than boys, but they were not significantly different from boys on writing achievement. 5. Discussion Although it is generally assumed that motivation plays an important role in writing and writing development (Graham, 2006; Hayes, 1996; Zimmerman & Reisemberg, 1997), it is

532

S. Graham et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 516–536

difficult to draw any definitive conclusions about these relationships because they have received little empirical attention. In the current study, we focused our attention on the structural relationship between attitude towards writing (a less conventional measure of affect) and writing performance, testing there different models. The first model was based on the premise that writing attitude can influence a child’s level of writing achievement (McKenna et al., 1995). To illustrate, children with a positive attitude towards writing may invest more effort when composing and choose to write when other options exist, whereas children with a negative attitude may choose to avoid writing whenever possible and invest little energy when they are required to write. With the second model, the catalyst in the writing attitude and achievement equation was performance and not motivation. Thus, poor performance or difficulty with writing may lead children to develop a negative attitude toward writing, whereas sustained writing success may foster a positive attitude (Kear et al., 2000). In the third model, the relationship between attitude and performance was viewed as reciprocal, with each factor influencing the development of the other (Mathewson, 1994). We tested the viability of these three different models with a sample of young, beginning writers (i.e., children in the primary grades). The model that provided the best fit to the data was the one that was consistent with the view that writing attitude influences writing performance. This model not only provided a good description of the data, but the direct path from attitude to achievement was statistically significant. These findings provide support for Graham’s (2006) conclusion that motivational variables serve to shape students’ writing development, at least in terms of their writing performance. They also are consistent with previous findings that individual differences in motivation predict writing performance (see also Albin et al., 1996; Knudson, 1995; Madigan et al., 1996; Pajares, 2003). This is one of the four criteria that Graham (2006) used to evaluate the claim that motivation is a catalyst for writing development. Why did the other two models not provide as good a fit to the data as the one with a direct path from attitude to achievement? In both of the other models, it was assumed that achievement influenced attitude development. Although the older children in this study (third graders) were better writers than the younger ones (first graders), the effects of writing achievement on attitude may take more time to occur or become apparent. It is also possible that primary grade children are not especially adept at gauging their writing abilities, limiting the possible impact of achievement on attitude development. Consequently, future research should examine the viability of the three models that were tested with older children. We expect that the relationship between writing attitude and writing achievement changes as students acquire more experience. It is possible that the writing attitudes of younger students are more ephemeral than those of their older counterparts. As students gain more knowledge about writing, its importance, and their capabilities as writers, their attitude towards writing may become more stable, resulting in different patterns of relationships between attitude and performance. A somewhat similar viewpoint is evident in the study of interest, as the development of personal interest (i.e., a relatively stable liking or affinity for a domain or activity) is dependent on developing an adequate level of pertinent content knowledge (Anderman & Wolters, 2006). One limitation of this study is that the sample of participating children mostly came from well educated families (93% of mothers and 83% of fathers had received some form of post-secondary education). Future research needs to determine if these findings hold true for children who come from different backgrounds, including children whose families

S. Graham et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 516–536

533

live in poverty. For example, it is possible that writing is less valued in families with a more limited educational background. Likewise, children living in poverty may have fewer writing resources, such as computers and writing materials, at home. These factors may mediate the relationship between writing attitudes and performance. It must further be noted that the students in this study were relatively good writers. The relationship between writing attitude and writing achievement may differ for children who have writing disabilities that make it more difficult for them to learn specific kinds of writing. Thus, additional research is needed to examine how motivational factors, including attitude, influence writing development and vice versa. There is currently some research to show that motivation to write has changed significantly following instructional interventions for children with writing problems in terms of reduced avoidance of the writing task (Berninger, Abbott, Whitaker, Sylvester, & Nolen, 1995) and self efficacy as a writer (Berninger & Hidi, in press). Researchers also need to examine if interventions designed to enhance motivation have a reciprocal impact on the performance of struggling writers. If future studies verify the relationship between writing attitude and achievement documented in the current study, it is important that researchers examine the mechanisms that mediate this relationship. As we noted in the introduction, this may include the impact of attitudes on how often students write and their persistence when writing (McKenna et al., 1995). It should further involve examining how attitudes influence the types of strategies students use when writing (Anderman & Wolters, 2006) as well as the effects of attitudes on cognitive efficiently during writing (Perkun, 1992). It is important to note that the findings from this study did not support one of the other criteria (i.e., motivation increases with schooling or age) that Graham (2006) used to evaluate the claim that motivation shapes writing. There was no statistically significant difference between first and third grade students in their attitude towards writing. Although previous research reported that older students have a more negative attitude toward writing than younger students (Knudson, 1991, 1992, 1993), these findings involved comparisons between children in grades three and higher (caution must further be exercised in comparing the findings from our study and those by Knudson’s, as the measures differed considerably). It is possible that children’s attitude towards writing does not start to decline until after third grade. Additional research is needed to test this possibility as well as to identify factors that weaken, sustain, or enhance students’ writing attitude. Finally, we found that young girls had a more positive attitude towards writing than did boys. This supported and extended Knudson’s (1993) finding that girls in grades 4 through 8 were more positive about writing than their classmates who were boys (again caution must be exercised in comparing Knudson’s and our findings due to differences in how attitude was measured). Gender differences in writing attitude did not appear to be related to writing achievement in the current study, as girls and boys’ writing performance did not differ statistically. These findings need to be replicated, and future research should attempt to untangle the factors responsible for girls’ often reported advantages in writing (e.g., Berninger & Fuller, 1992; Walberg & Ethington, 1991). In summary, this investigation offers partial support for the claim that motivational variables shape writing achievement. For the young developing writers in this study, a model based on the assumption that attitude influences achievement provided a better fit for the data than models based on the assumption that achievement influences attitude or that the relationship between the two constructs is reciprocal. Nevertheless, there was no difference in younger and older students’ attitude towards writing. It is reasonable to

534

S. Graham et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 516–536

expect that if writing attitude is a catalyst in children’s writing development over time, developing writers’ attitude should become more positive with age or schooling (Graham, 2006). This did not happen in the current study. Alternatively, it is possible that if attitudes are fairly positive to begin with and stay so that they will influence writing achievement. Again, this was not the case, as the participating students’ average response at each grade level to the 7 attitude items was generally positive, but lukewarm (M = 2.67 for first graders; M = 2.53 for third graders). Finally, it is important to emphasize that this study only focused on one aspect of motivation (i.e., attitudes) and involved young, beginning writers. Other motivational or writing variables or populations of writers may yield a different pattern of results. Also, the relation between writing performance and motivational variables may change as developing writers mature and become increasingly competent. It is hoped that the current research will stimulate further research on writing motivation in general and writing attitude in particular and on models of writing that characterize the relationship of motivation to cognitive and language variables in the writing process. If future research continues to provide support for models of writing where young children’s attitudes or other motivational characteristics influence writing achievement, the identification and implementation of effective procedures for enhancing writing motivation becomes even more paramount. One means of identifying potentially effective motivational procedures in writing is to study exceptional primary grade teachers to determine the motivational strategies they employ (see for example Bogner, Raphael, & Pressley, 2002). Another approach is to test the effectiveness of potentially effective procedures via traditional experimental methodology (see for example Garcia & de Caso, 2004). The identification and classroom implementation of evidence-based motivational techniques may be especially important for students who struggle with writing, as they often dislike writing and devalue its importance (De Caso & Garcia, 2006). References Aiken, L. S., Stein, J. A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Structural equation analyses of clinical subpopulation differences and comparative treatment outcomes: characterizing the daily lives of drug addicts. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 488–499. Albin, M., Benton, S., & Khramtsova, I. (1996). Individual differences in interest and narrative writing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 305–324. Alexander, P. (1998). The nature of disciplinary and domain learning: the knowledge, interest, and strategic dimensions of learning from subject-matter text. In C. Hynd (Ed.), Learning from text across conceptual domains (pp. 55–76). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Alexander, J., & Filler, R. (1976). Attitudes and reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Alexander, P., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1998). A perspective on strategy research: progress and prospects. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 129–154. Anderman, E., & Wolters, C. (2006). Goals, values, and affect: influences on student motivation. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 369–389). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bentler, P. M. (1991). Theory and implementation of EOS: a structural equations program (Version 3.0). Los Angeles: University of California. Bentler, P. M., & Wu, E. J. (1995). EQS for Windows: Users’ guide. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software. Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Whitaker, D., Sylvester, L., & Nolen, S. (1995). Integrating low-level skills and highlevel skills in treatment protocols for writing disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 293–309.

S. Graham et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 516–536

535

Berninger, V., & Fuller, F. (1992). Gender differences in orthographic, verbal, and compositional fluency: implications for assessing writing disabilities in primary grade children. Journal of School Psychology, 30, 363–382. Berninger, V., & Hidi, S. (in press). Mark Twain’s writers’ workshop: A nature-nurture perspective in motivating students with learning disabilities to compose. In S. Hidi, & P. Boscolo (Eds). Motivation in writing. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Bogner, K., Raphael, L., & Pressley, M. (2002). How grade-1 teachers motivate literate activity by their students. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 135–165. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley. Cooper, C. (1977). Holistic evaluation of writing. In C. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing (pp. 3–31). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Corno, L., & Rohrkemper, M. (1985). The intrinsic motivation to learn in classrooms. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: The classroom mileu (pp. 53–84). New York: Academic Press. De Caso, A., & Garcia, J. (2006). What is missing from current writing intervention programmes? The need for writing motivation programmes. Estudio de Psicologia, 27, 211–242. Espin, C., De La Paz, S., Scierka, B., & Roelofs, L. (2005). The relationship between curriculum-based measures in written expression and quality and completeness of expository writing for middle school students. Journal of Special Education, 38, 208–217. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Garcia, J., & de Caso, A. (2004). Effects of a motivational intervention for improving the writing of children with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 141–159. Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 457–478). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and motivation of struggling young writers: the effects of Self-Regulated Strategy Development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 207–241. Graham, S., Schwartz, S., & MacArthur, C. (1993). Knowledge of writing and the composing process, attitude toward writing, and the self-efficacy for students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 237–249. Green, S. B., & Thompson, M. S. (2003). Structural equation modeling in clinical research. In M. C. Roberts & S. S. Illardi (Eds.), Methods of research in clinical psychology: A handbook. London: Blackwell. Green, S. B., Thompson, M. S., & Poirier, J. (1999). Exploratory analyses to improve model fit: errors due to misspecification and a strategy to reduce their occurrence. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 113–126. Greenbaum, B., Graham, S., & Scales, W. (1995). Adults with learning disabilities: educational and social experiences during college. Exceptional Children, 61, 460–471. Hammill, D., & Larsen, S. (1988). Test of Written Language-2. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Hancock, G. R. (1997). Structural equation modeling methods of hypothesis testing of latent variable means. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 20, 91–105. Hayes, J. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1–27). Erbaum: Mahwah, NJ. Hidi, S., & Boscolo, P. (in press). Motivation and writing. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research. New York: Guilford. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. Isen, A. (1999). Positive affect. In T. Dalgeish & M. Power (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 521–539). New York: Wiley. Kear, D., Coffman, G., McKenna, M., & Ambrosio, A. (2000). Measuring attitude toward writing: a new tool for teachers. Reading Teacher, 54, 10–23. Klassen, R. (2002). Writing in early adolescence: a review of the role of self-efficacy beliefs. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 173–203. Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press. Knudson, R. (1991). Development and use of a writing attitude survey in grades 4 to 8. Psychological Report, 68, 807–816.

536

S. Graham et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 32 (2007) 516–536

Knudson, R. (1992). Development and application of a writing attitude survey for grades 1 to 3. Psychological Reports, 70, 711–720. Knudson, R. (1993). Effects of ethnicity in attitudes toward writing. Psychological Reports, 72, 39–45. Knudson, R. (1995). Writing experiences, attitudes, and achievement of first to sixth graders. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 90–97. Madigan, R., Linton, P., & Johnston, S. (1996). The paradox of writing apprehension. In M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 295–307). Mahwah, NJ: Erbaum. Mathewson, G. (1994). Model of attitude influence upon reading and learning to read. In R. Ruddell, M. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 1131–1161). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. McCutchen, D. (1986). Children’s discourse skills: form and modality requirements of schooled writing. Discourse Processes, 10, 267–286. McKenna, M., Kear, D., & Ellsworth, R. (1995). Children’s attitudes toward reading: a national survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 934–956. Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: a review of the literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 139–158. Perkun, R. (1992). The impact of emotions on learning and achievement: towards a theory of cognitive/ motivational mediators. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41, 359–376. Perkun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. (2002). Acedemic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: a program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 91–105. Prior, P. (2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 54–66). New York: Guilford. Roseburg, E. (1998). Levels of analysis and the organization of affect. Review of General Psychology, 2, 247–270. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Written composition. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 778–803). New York: MacMillan. Shell, D., Colvin, C., & Bruning, R. (1995). Self-efficacy, attribution, and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: grade-level and achievement-level differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 386–398. Schultz, K., & Fecho, B. (2000). Society’s child: social context and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 51–62. Schunk, D., & Swartz, C. (1993). Writing strategy instruction with gifted students: effects of goals and feedback on self-efficacy and skills. Roeper Review, 15, 225–230. Schunk, D., & Zimmerman, B. (Eds.). (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Vrugt, A., Oort, F., & Zeeberg, C. (2002). Goal orientations, perceived self-efficacy and study results among beginner and advanced students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 385–397. Wagner, D., Spratt, J., Gal, I., & Paris, S. (1989). Reading and believing: beliefs, attributions, and reading achievement in Moroccan school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 283–293. Walberg, H., & Ethington, C. (1991). Correlates of writing performance and interest: a U.S. National assessment study. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 198–203. Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-2. (2002). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp. Zimmerman, B., & Reisemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: a social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73–101.