Unresolved issues in defining and assessing writing motivational constructs: A review of conceptualization and measurement perspectives

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Assessing Writing journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/asw

Unresolved issues in defining and assessing writing motivational constructs: A review of conceptualization and measurement perspectives Muhammad M.M. Abdel Latif College of Languages & Translation, Al Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Writing motivation Writing affect Writing self-efficacy Writing apprehension Writing attitude Writing anxiety Writing outcome expectancy Writing achievement goal

Motivational variables significantly influence learners’ writing experiences and performance. Diagnosing learners’ affective perceptions and beliefs using accurate measures is a prerequisite for identifying the optimal ways for motivating them to write. Though writing motivation has been researched for more than four decades, some issues in defining and assessing its constructs are yet to be resolved. This paper critically reviews the developments in conceptualizing and measuring writing motivational constructs. While the review indicates a consistency in the definitions and scales of writers’ outcome expectancy and achievement goals, there are some problematic issues in those of the other constructs. Specifically, the conceptual and terminological overlap and scale construct validity problems are noted in writing apprehension, attitude and anxiety research. Meanwhile, a wide variance occurs in the conceptualizations and measures of writing self-efficacy. Four other constructs (writing self-concept, implicit theories of writing, and incremental and entity theories of writing intelligence) appear to be identical, on the one hand, and close to writing self-efficacy on the other one. The paper ends with discussing some issues that need to be considered in future writing motivation research.

1. Introduction 'Writing motivation' is a term often used interchangeably with 'writing affect' and 'writers’ beliefs' (see Boscolo & Hidi, 2007; Hayes, 1996; Pajares & Valiante, 2001). As literature generally indicates, learners’ writing motivation is an umbrella term encompassing their liking or disliking of writing situations and tasks, situational feelings experienced while writing, beliefs about one’s general writing ability and task-specific skills, perceived value of writing, and desired goals for learning how to write. Daly (1985) distinguishes between two types of writers' motivational perceptions and beliefs: a) the dispositional perceptions lasting consistently over time and across situations; and b) the situational feelings which are temporary and closely tied to particular situations or tasks. In their discussion of the relationship between writing and motivation, Boscolo and Hidi (2007) also refer to three types of motivational constructs; these are: a) motives which include writers’ goal orientation, needs, values, and interests activating their behaviours; b) writers’ perceptions of their abilities to write and perform tasks; and c) writers’ regulation of their cognition and behaviours. Motivation plays an important role in shaping learners’ writing experiences and performance. Research indicates that learners with low motivation avoid writing situations, have anxious composing habits, write fewer words, ideas and drafts (e.g., Abdel Latif, 2015; Mahfoodh, 2017; Selfe, 1984), and undergo negative procrastination in completing writing tasks (e.g., Fritzsche, Young, & E-mail address: [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2019.100417 Received 16 February 2019; Received in revised form 4 July 2019; Accepted 12 July 2019 1075-2935/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Muhammad M.M. Abdel Latif, Assessing Writing, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2019.100417

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M.M.M. Abdel Latif

Hickson, 2003; Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2002). Based on the assumption that writers’ performance interacts with a combination of cognitive, affective, social and environmental variables, the affective component was included in Hayes’s (1996, 2012) writing process models in which he views motivation as a main predictor of writers’ performance. Due to the influential role of motivation in writing, attention should be paid to motivating students to write and/or helping them overcome negative writing affect. Since this process starts by diagnosing writers’ motivational perceptions and beliefs, we need to conceptualize and assess them accurately. Writing motivation research dates back to the mid-1970s when Daly and Miller (1975) reported their seminal work on writers’ apprehension. In more than four decades, several writing motivational constructs have been researched. The main constructs addressed in writing motivation research are: writing apprehension, attitude, anxiety, self-efficacy, self-concept, outcome expectancy, and achievement goal orientation. Besides, other constructs have recently been coined but they appear to overlap with some of the above-mentioned ones. These include: implicit theories of writing, incremental and entity theories of writing intelligence, and ideal writing self. Apprehension along with attitude were the most heavily researched constructs in the writing motivation studies published from the mid-1970s to the late 1980s. Since the early 1990s, self-efficacy has been extensively researched more than any other writing motivational construct. Writing anxiety studies have occurred more frequently since the last decade but remained relatively few. Similarly, a few studies have addressed writers' achievement goal orientation, outcome expectancy, and self-concept. Despite the 4-decade-old research on writers' motivational constructs, the varied perspectives in defining and measuring a number of them can be easily noted. Though there have been some previous reviews of writing motivation research (e.g., Boscolo & Hidi, 2007; Klassen, 2002; Pajares, 2003; Troia, Shankland, & Wolbers, 2012), none of these works has adequately highlighted such varied perspectives. Addressing this gap, the present paper critically reviews and discusses the conceptualization and measurement perspectives of the writing motivational constructs researched. In this review, I have relied on surveying the relevant literature published from 1975 (i.e., the year that witnessed the publication of Daly and Miller’s seminal work) to 2018. As noted in the reference list, the vast majority of the works reviewed are research reports and theoretical papers published in the well-known international journals of language education, applied linguistics and educational psychology. The other works reviewed were published as books or book chapters. In reviewing these empirical and theoretical works, the aim was to explore how researchers have conceptualized and/or measured the target writing motivational construct(s). This review approach has resulted in comparing the conceptualizations and scales of each construct, and identifying any potential differences among them. In what follows, the summary of the review is organized in three sections discussing related issues. The first section covers the conceptualizations and measures of writing apprehension, attitude and anxiety. The second one discusses relevant research on writing self-efficacy and the constructs close to it. As for the third section, it highlights the target issues in writing outcome expectancy and goal achievement literature. 2. Writing apprehension, attitude and anxiety Apprehension, attitude and anxiety were the first constructs addressed in writing motivation literature. The term ‘writing apprehension’ was first coined by Daly and Miller (1975) when they developed their well-known measure of the construct. Meanwhile, the term ‘writing anxiety’ was also used in the early published writing apprehension works (e.g., Daly & Miller, 1975; Daly & Wilson, 1983; Faigley, Daly, & Witte, 1981), but the few studies researching it only occurred in the last two decades. A very few studies published in the 1970s also investigated writers’ attitude (e.g., Blake, 1976), and since the mid-1980s the construct has been addressed in a reasonable number of published studies. Though the three constructs are usually referred to as different from each other, conceptual and terminological overlap problems are noted in their literature. Another noted problem is related to the construct validity of the scales assessing them. These three problems are discussed in the next sub-sections. 2.1. Conceptual overlap The clear overlap in conceptualizing writing apprehension and anxiety has has been very rarely discussed. As Wynne, Guo, and Wang (2014) state, much research has conflated the two constructs but it is important to differentiate between them. In their (1975) paper, Daly and Miller used the terms ‘writing apprehension’ and ‘writing anxiety’ synonymously, though they indicate that anxiety is a symptom of apprehension by characterizing apprehensive writers as “those who…avoid writing when possible and when forced to write exhibit high levels of anxiety.” (p. 244). In two later works reported by Daly and his colleagues, we can find a gradual conceptualization change leading them at the very end to differentiate between the two constructs. In the first work, Faigley et al. (1981) explain the situational nature of writing anxiety by stating that when highly apprehensive writers have to write, “they experience more than normal amounts of anxiety…Thus anxiety is reflected in the behaviours they display as they write” (p. 16). In the second work, Daly and Hailey (1984) distinguish between two forms of writing apprehension: the dispositional apprehension which is a trait-like form, and the situational apprehension which is a state-like and reflects the person’s transitory feelings resulting from writing situations or tasks. While Daly and Hailey (1984) argue that these dispositional and situational forms of writing apprehension– in their words– are distinct but complementary, Boscolo and Hidi (2007) note that most previous studies have solely focused on the dispositional form. It can be noted that such negligence of researching or discussing this situational construct of writing motivation– or what is labelled here as writing anxiety– lasted almost from the mid-1980s until the beginning of the 2000s when Fritzsche et al. (2003), and Cheng (2004) reported their writing anxiety studies. Fritzsche et al. (2003) conceptualize writing anxiety as the negative feelings learners experience while performing tasks, and operationalize it as a pure situational construct using an adapted measure from the 2

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M.M.M. Abdel Latif

Spielberger’s (1983) State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). This measure– which was also used earlier by Meier, McCarthy, and Schmeck (1984)– assesses the extent to which writers feel worried, tense, upset, frightened, jittery, confused, or nervous while completing their assignments. Therefore, their conceptualization of writing anxiety is similar to Daly and Hailey’s (1984) view of situational apprehension. Similarly, Woodrow (2011) views writing anxiety as a pure situational construct through using a measure that focuses on assessing respondents’ rating of how anxious they feel while completing particular writing tasks. On the other hand, Cheng (2004), who used writing apprehension and anxiety synonymously, conceptualizes the construct from a multidimensional perspective and views it as encompassing: a) somatic anxiety: increased physiological reactions to writing tasks; b) avoidance behaviour of writing situations; and c) cognitive anxiety: fearing negative evaluation of one's writing. As noted, a main issue yet to be resolved is whether writing apprehension should be viewed as a purely dispositional construct or a dispositional-situational one. Wynne et al. (2014) propose conceptualizing writers’ apprehension as a sub-set of their anxiety, but this view does not concur with what Daly and Miller (1975) and Faigley et al. (1981) imply about viewing writers’ anxiety as a symptom of their apprehension; and it has not been empirically supported either. Accordingly, I suggest viewing writing anxiety as a pure situational construct. This view is in line with the general psychology and language learning research (e.g., Liu & Jackson, 2008; Spielberger, 1983; Woodrow, 2006) emphasizing the pure situational nature of anxiety and conceptualizing it as the negative feelings individuals or learners undergo in particular situations. Drawing also on Daly’s (1985) above-mentioned taxonomy of writers' motivational perceptions and beliefs, it can be argued that writers’ anxiety is a situational construct, whereas all the other writing motivational constructs– including writing apprehension– are dispositional ones. 2.2. Terminological overlap The two main terminological overlap problems in writing apprehension, attitude and anxiety literature are: using terms describing different constructs synonymously, and naming the same construct differently. The first problem specifically occurs– as implied above– in using writing apprehension and anxiety synonymously. In the published writing apprehension studies adopting the term ‘writing anxiety’, researchers have used it without justifying or discussing the why of their terminological choice. This is noted in the early relevant works published in the 1970s and 1980s (e.g., Daly & Wilson, 1983; Faigley et al., 1981), though the term ‘writing apprehension’ was more commonly used. Meanwhile, some studies (e.g., Cheng, Horwitz, & Schallert, 1999; Huerta, Goodson, Beigi, & Chlup, 2017) operationalize ‘writing anxiety’ by Daly and Miller’s (1975) Writing Apprehension Test (WAT) or an adapted version of it. Similarly, Zabihi (2008) also relied on Daly and Miller’s (1975) definition of writing apprehension but labelled the construct addressed as “writing anxiety”. Such terminological overlap contradicts the above-explained difference between the two constructs. Even if the two terms can be used synonymously, the question remains: which term (witting apprehension or anxiety) is a better label for the construct and why? Another terminological overlap problem occurs when referring to writers’ attitude and apprehension. As a construct, ‘writing attitude’ seems to be identical to ‘writing apprehension’ in a number of studies. Many of the items in the previously used writing attitude scales (e.g., Bruning, Dempsey, Kauffman, McKim, & Zumbrunn, 2013; Charney, Newman, & Palmquist, 1995; Graham, Schwartz, & MacArthur, 1993; Lee, 2013) are almost the same as those normally included in the writing apprehension ones. For example, three items in Graham et al.’s (1993) Attitudes towards Writing Scale (“I like to write”, “I avoid writing whenever I can”, and “Writing is a waste of time”, p.242), and all the four items in Bruning et al.’s (2013) Liking Writing Scale (“I enjoy writing”, “I don’t like to write”, “Writing is fun”, and “I feel bad when I write”, p. 32) are extremely similar to the following items in Daly and Miller’s (1975) WAT: “I enjoy writing”, “I like to write my ideas down”, “I avoid writing”, “Writing is a lot of fun”, “Expressing ideas through writing seems to be a waste of time”, and “I'm nervous about writing” (p. 246). In fact, the extent to which writing apprehension and attitude are identical was early noted by Shaver (1990) who states that Daly and Miller’s (1975) measure and Daly and Wilson’s (1983) definition of writing apprehension match and confirm his conceptualization of attitude towards writing. The above comparison of the conceptualizations and measures of both writing apprehension and attitude generally indicates they are identical or very similar constructs, though writing attitude is conceptualized by some studies in a way suggesting it is not as broad as apprehension (e.g., Bruning et al., 2013; Graham et al., 1993; Lee, 2013). Despite such identicalness or similarity, the studies using the term ‘writing attitude’ have neither explained the similarity and/or difference between the two terms nor justified their choice of such label. The negligence of discussing this issue in writing motivation literature has led in many cases to viewing the two constructs– unlike what has been shown– as completely different or dissimilar. Thus, we can find that though some studies using the ‘writing apprehension’ term (e.g., Britt, Pribesh, Hinton-Johnson, & Gupta, 2018; Sanders-Reio, Alexander, Reio, & Newman, 2014) or the ‘writing attitude’ one (e.g., Graham, Berninger, & Fan, 2007; Lee, 2013) address identical or very similar constructs, they only highlight the previous research adopting their chosen term. 2.3. Construct validity of the scales used A third problem noted in the published research addressing these three motivational variables is the construct validity of the scales assessing them. With regard to writing apprehension scales, the construct validity problem has been particularly noted in Daly and Miller’s (1975) 26-item WAT. Though the WAT has been the most frequently used scale in measuring writers' apprehension, many reports (e.g., Bline, Lowe, Meixner, Nouri, & Pearce, 2001; Burgoon & Hale, 1983; Cheng et al., 1999; Shaver, 1990) indicate that its construct validity is questionable because it assesses more than one variable. These empirical findings on the multidimensionality of the WAT are also supported by the observations indicating that it is not a pure measure of writing apprehension (e.g., Gungle & Taylor, 1989; Richmond & Dickson-Markman, 1985). Although some studies avoided this problem by using adapted 3

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M.M.M. Abdel Latif

and shorter scales whose items assess writers’ apprehension only (e.g., Abdel Latif, 2015; Pajares & Valiante, 1997, 2001; Pajares, Johnson, & Usher, 2007), other recent writing apprehension studies relied upon the original WAT version (e.g., Britt et al., 2018; Sanders-Reio et al., 2014). Recently, Limpo (2018) tried to validate a shorter version adapted from the WAT but her suggested 12item scale includes the following five items which are more relevant to writers’ self-concept or self-efficacy than to their apprehension: “I expect to do poorly in composition classes even before I enter them”, “When I hand in a composition, I know I'm going to do poorly”, “It's easy for me to write good compositions”, “I don't think I write as well as most other people”, and “I'm not good at writing” (p. 119). On the other hand, Riffe and Stacks’s (1988) Mass Communication Writing Apprehension Measure (MCWAM) is commonly used with journalism majors. Their principal components analysis of this 56-items scale yielded the following seven factors it assesses: 1) general affect or enjoyment and anticipation of writing; 2) blank page paralysis or the difficulty occurs while starting the task; 3) awareness of deficiency or lack of confidence; 4) evaluation apprehension; 5) relevance of writing to careers; 6) writing task avoidance; and 7) facts versus ideas (relevance of the student’s writing ease to a particular type of writing). Thus, the MCWAM is arguably not a pure writing apprehension measure; it is similar to Daly and Miller’s (1975) WAT in its multidimensionality. Only three of the seven components the MCWAM assesses (i.e., general affect, evaluation apprehension and task avoidance) are pertinent to writing apprehension as a construct of dispositional nature. The other components of the scale can be regarded as potential correlates of writing apprehension in the mass communication context. The published writing attitude scales are characterized by including a smaller number of items ranging from four to nine (e.g., Bruning et al., 2013; Graham et al., 2007, 1993; Lee, 2013; Shaver, 1990). These scales can be regarded as pure measures of writing attitude. On the other hand, Charney et al. (1995), Knudson (1991), and Kear, Coffman, McKenna, and Ambrosio (2000) developed scales with a larger number of items to measure young learners’ writing attitude. Kear et al.’s 28-item scale focuses on assessing children’s attitudes towards a number of writing activities, whereas Charney et al.’s 12-item and Knudson’s 19-item scales resemble Daly and Miller's (1975) WAT in assessing learners’ self-perceived writing ability along with attitude, i.e., they do not seem to be pure measures of writing attitude. Another measure is Rose’s (1985) 24-item Attitude towards Writing Questionnaire (WAQ) which assesses writers’ attitude along with their self-efficacy beliefs and procrastination, editing and blocking behaviours. According to Phinney (1991), the WAQ does not mainly assess apprehension or attitude but it measures the feelings, beliefs and behaviours leading to the writer’s block. With regard to writing anxiety, the three scales used by Meier et al. (1984) and Fritzsche et al. (2003); Cheng (2004), and Woodrow (2011) are perhaps the only ones developed so far for measuring it. On the one hand, it is still questionable whether the items assessing cognitive anxiety and avoidance behaviours in Cheng’s (2004) Second Language Writing Anxiety Inventory (SLWAI) validly mirror writers' anxiety or are more relevant to their apprehension. Both possibilities raise further questions about defining and assessing the two constructs. On the other hand, the two writing anxiety scales used by Meier et al. (1984) and Fritzsche et al. (2003), and Woodrow (2011) are likely better measures of the construct because they assess writers’ situational feelings. Given the scarcity of the proposed measures for assessing writing anxiety, much research is needed to develop scales diagnosing writers’ anxious feelings in multiple settings. 3. Writing self-efficacy and related constructs The term ‘self-efficacy’ was coined by Bandura (1977) who defines it as one’s perceived ability to perform specific tasks and execute given actions. According to Bandura (1977, 1986), self-efficacy beliefs are task-specific and act as a prerequisite for individuals’ successful performance of tasks because they determine their intentions and effort persistence. The 1980s saw the beginning of writing self-efficacy research. Specifically, the earliest cited studies on writers’ self-efficacy are those reported by Meier et al. (1984) and McCarthy, Meier, and Rinderer (1985). Since the early 1990s, writing self-efficacy has been the most heavily researched writing motivational construct. Bruning et al. (2013) refer to four waves of early writing self-efficacy research led by McCarthy, Shell, Pajares and Zimmerman, and their colleagues. This section discusses the following three thorny issues noted in the conceptualization and measurement literature of writing self-efficacy: its changing conceptualization orientations and widely varied scales, and the constructs related to it. 3.1. Changing conceptualizations of the construct Since its introduction in writing research in the mid-1980s, writing self-efficacy has undergone some changing conceptualizations. Most early studies reported in the 1980s and 1990s view writing self-efficacy as learners’ evaluation of their writing ability at both the task and language-specific skill levels. Some examples of the writing self-efficacy definitions given by such studies include: a) students’ evaluation of their writing skills (McCarthy et al., 1985); b) writers’ confidence in their ability to successfully perform specific tasks, and demonstrate particular rhetorical and language skills (Shell, Murphy, & Bruning, 1989); and c) learners’ perceived confidence in having the writing, grammar usage and mechanics skills appropriate to their academic level (Pajares & Valiante, 1999). Some recent studies adopt the same approach in defining writing self-efficacy. For example, Woodrow (2011) defines the construct as one’s perceived ability to perform writing tasks and execute linguistic, rhetorical and mechanical writing skills. Abdel Latif (2015) also views writing self-efficacy as learners’ judgment and rating of their essay writing ability, and sentence and paragraph writing skills. On the other hand, Zimmerman and his colleagues conceptualize writing self-efficacy from a cognitive perspective. According to Zimmerman and Bandura (1994), writers’ self-efficacy is their perceived capabilities to generate ideas, and plan, execute and regulate 4

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M.M.M. Abdel Latif

composing activities and strategies (i.e., writing self-regulatory efficacy). This view of writing self-efficacy was further explored and addressed in the later studies reported by Zimmerman and his colleagues (e.g., Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1999, 2002) and some other researchers (e.g., MacArthur, Philippakos, & Graham, 2016). Contrarily to such cognitive orientation, three studies (Csizér & Tankó, 2015; Han & Hiver, 2018; Lee, Yu & Liu, 2018) assessed both writing self-efficacy and self-regulation using different scales. This implies that these three studies characterize writers’ self-regulation beliefs as different from their self-efficacy ones. Some recent studies view writing self-efficacy as a multi-dimensional construct but they differ in its dimensions. For example, Jones (2008) defines writing self-efficacy as learners’ beliefs about how to respond to writing difficulties, and about their ability to write different essay types and demonstrate sentence- and paragraph-level skills. Arguing that writing self-efficacy should be framed in a way reflecting writers’ perceived beliefs of their cognitive, linguistic, and self-regulatory abilities, Bruning et al. (2013) conceptualize the construct as learners’ perceived abilities of: a) ideation or idea generation; b) writing conventions: articulating ideas into appropriate linguistic and rhetorical written forms; and c) self-regulation: managing, monitoring and evaluating writing activities. Meanwhile, Teng, Sun, and Xu (2018) emphasize the social-cognitive and self-regulation paradigms in their conceptualization of writing self-efficacy by viewing it as a construct composed of three focal dimensions: a) linguistic self-efficacy: writers’ perceived ability to express ideas using appropriate lexical, syntactical and rhetorical conventions; b) self-regulatory efficacy: writers’ judgments of their ability to execute planning, monitoring, and goal-setting processes; and c) performance self-efficacy: writers’ perceived capability to complete classroom tasks and understand course knowledge. As noted above, there have been three main changing orientations in conceptualizing writing self-efficacy. Collectively, these are concerned with writers’ beliefs about their ability to: perform particular language-specific skills and tasks, regulate their composing processes and activities, and execute some cognitive, linguistic, self-regulatory or learning actions. Within each of these three orientations, there is also some variance in the types of writing self-efficacy beliefs or task(s) researchers have focused on. These issues are discussed in the next sub-section. 3.2. Using widely varied scales The number of the scales developed so far for measuring writers’ self-efficacy is remarkably far larger than the number of those proposed for assessing any other writing motivational construct. A main consequence of this is the wide variance noted in the published writing self-efficacy scales. This wide variance can be attributed to the inconsistency in the types of their items and the writing tasks they focus on. While the published writing self-efficacy scales include items which concur with one or more of the above-mentioned conceptualizations, differences can also be noted in the type of items in the scales assessing the same dimension of writers’ perceived skills or abilities. For example, the two multi-dimensional scales developed by Bruning et al. (2013) and Teng et al. (2018) differ in the items assessing writing self-regulation efficacy. Bruning et al. (2013) used items measuring learners’ self-regulation beliefs about their ability to avoid distractions while composing texts, but the self-regulation items in Teng et al.’s (2018) scale focus on writers’ perceived ability to execute some monitoring strategies, and to plan their learning-to-write processes. On the other hand, the items of these two sub-scales differ substantially from those of Zimmerman and Bandura’s (1994) Writing Self-regulatory Efficacy Scale which measures learners’ perceived capability to use composing strategies, produce innovative rhetorical textual aspects, and manage time, stress and distraction. Needless to say, the number of the items included in the writing self-efficacy scales plays an additional impact on the variance among them. Some self-efficacy measures include fewer than 10 items (e.g., Chea & Shumow, 2017; Csizér & Tankó, 2015; Graham et al., 1993; Han & Hiver, 2018; Troia, Harbaugh, Shankland, Wolbers, & Lawrence, 2013), whereas other ones consist of 15–20 items (Abdel Latif, 2015; Bruning et al., 2013; MacArthur et al., 2016; Shell et al., 1989; Teng et al., 2018; Woodrow, 2011) or more than 25 ones (e.g., Kavanoz & Yüksel, 2016; Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994). Another important but rarely discussed issue is related to the task specificity in writing self-efficacy scales. Klassen (2002) argues that there should be a strong correspondence between the self-efficacy scale used and the criterial writing task respondents are to perform because this “is essential to maximize predictive power of self-efficacy beliefs and to secure confidence that the measure is accurately reflecting the performance task” (p. 184). The published self-efficacy scales vary considerably with regard to the number and type of writing task(s) learners are to perform. Some scales focus only on one writing task type such as paragraphs (Chea & Shumow, 2017), one-page passages (Pajares & Valiante, 1997), high school assignments (Bruning et al., 2013), university compositions (Teng et al., 2018), essays (Abdel Latif, 2015; Prat-Sala & Redford, 2010), and academic and scholarly writing (Golombek, Klingsieck, & Scharlau, 2018; Kavanoz & Yüksel, 2016). Some other scales include more than one task such as assignments and papers (Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994), cloze passages, essays, letters and paragraph translation (Woodrow, 2011), and papers, reports and stories (Graham et al., 1993). On the other hand, a much larger number of writing tasks are given in Shell et al.’s (1989) scale, including: letters, instructional manuals, legal documents, resumes, term papers, scholary articles, letter short stories, novels, and class notes. Arguably, the scales with items about multiple writing tasks lack the strong correspondence between the self-efficacy scale and the task to be performed. According to Pajares (2003), any self-efficacy scale should always be administered prior to getting participants perform the task under investigation, and its items should be closely matched to that task in order to mirror the strong relationship between writers’ perceived beliefs and their composing outcome. The above discussion of writing self-efficacy conceptualizations and scales draws our attention to some important points. First, these varied conceptualization and measurement orientations of the construct make the comparability and generalizability of research findings more difficult. Second, they also indicate the need for conceptualizing writing self-efficacy as a construct of various types associated with particular tasks. But in order to have a more accurate conceptualization of a given writing self-efficacy type and 5

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M.M.M. Abdel Latif

develop purer measures for assessing it, the problematic issues highlighted above need to be considered in future studies. Some published writing self-efficacy scales also include items assessing learners’ social comparison. For example: “When my class is asked to write a report, mine is one of the best” (Graham et al., 1993, p. 241), “When my class is asked to write a report, mine is one of the best” (Wong et al., 1997¸ p. 5), and “I do not think I write in English as well as my classmates” (Abdel Latif, 2015, p. 211). A similar type of items is related to the perceived general writing ability and its improvability, and to what Daly (1985) labels as ‘comparison deficiency’, i.e., learners’ continuous belief that their writing ability is deficient when compared to what they want it to be. For example: “I am not good at writing in English”, “I expect to do poorly in English writing classes even before I enter them”, and “When I hand in an English essay, I know I am going to do poorly” (Abdel Latif, 2015, p. 211). The question remains about whether these items assess learners’ writing self-efficacy or not. This issue is discussed in the next sub-section which deals with the motivational constructs related to writing self-efficacy. 3.3. Related constructs A few studies have addressed some motivational constructs which seem to be close to writing self-efficacy; namely: writing selfconcept, implicit theories of writing, and incremental and entity theories of writing intelligence. The four constructs have been named differently but indeed they are almost identical. Though an earlier reference to writing self-concept was made by Shaver (1990) who found some items assessing it in Daly and Miller's (1975) WAT, a few studies addressing the construct have been published since 1999. These studies were reported by Pajares and Valiante (1999, 2001), Pajares, Miller, and Johnson (1999), Pajares, Britner, and Valiante (2000), Pajares and Cheong (2003), Pajares, Johnson et al. (2007) and Ehm, Lindberg, and Hasselhorn (2014). In all the studies conducted by Pajares and his colleagues, writing self-concept is viewed as “the judgments of self-worth associated with one’s self-perception as a writer” (Pajares & Valiante, 2001, p. 370), and operationalized by a 6-item scale adapted from Marsh’s (1990) Academic Self Description Questionnaire. The two sample items given in their research reports are: “Learning how to be a better writer is easy for me” (Pajares & Valiante, 1999, p. 395), and “I have always done well on writing assignments” (Pajares & Valiante, 2001, p. 370). Similarly, Ehm et al. (2014) also used a 6-item scale adapted from Marsh’s (1990) work, and the items of their scale include: “In writing, I make a lot of mistakes/no mistakes”, “In writing, I am the worst/best”, and “In writing, I am not gifted/very gifted” (p. 290). On the other hand, four recent studies have investigated three constructs similar to writing self-concept. Limpo and Alves (2014) coined the term ‘implicit theories of writing’ which refers to learners’ beliefs about the malleability and improvability of their writing ability. They operationalize their construct by the 5-item Implicit Theories of Writing scale which was also used in their two later studies (Limpo & Alves, 2017; Limpo, 2018). The items of this scale include: “My texts will always have the same quality, no matter how much I try to change it”, “If I write well, it’s because I was born like that”, and “I can’t change the quality of my texts” (p. 567). Meanwhile, Waller and Papi (2017) also coined the two constructs of the incremental theory and entity theory of writing intelligence. While the former refers to learners' “belief that writing intelligence is dynamic and can grow through effort and experience", the latter means their "belief that writing intelligence is fixed and unchangeable" (Waller & Papi, 2017, 54). Waller and Papi (2017) assessed their newly coined constructs using short scales composed of two and three items, respectively. The items assessing learners’ entity theory of writing intelligence are: “You can improve your English writing skills, but you can’t really change your writing talent”, “As an English learner, you have a limited amount of talent for developing your English writing skills, and you can’t really do much to change it”, and “No matter how hard you try, as an English language learner you can never write like a native speaker” (p. 58). As for the two items tapping learners’ incremental theory of writing intelligence, these are: “With enough practice you will be able to write like a native speaker of English”, and “No matter who you are, you can always learn to write as well as native speakers of English” (p. 58). It can be easily noted that the two constructs coined by Waller and Papi (2017) are very identical to Limpo and Alves’s (2014) ‘implicit theories of writing’. The few items of the scales assessing the three constructs were mainly derived and adapted from Dweck’s (2000) work on self-theories and motivation. Thus, the four researchers relied completely on general psychology rather than writing motivation literature in their coinage of the three constructs. Meanwhile, the scales used for assessing them are composed of items reflecting learners’ observational comparison and comparison deficiency. As mentioned in the previous sub-section, some writing self-efficacy scales also include items assessing these writing ability beliefs (e.g., Abdel Latif, 2015; Graham et al., 1993, Wong et al., 1997). Writing motivation literature generally suggests that writers’ self-concept beliefs seem to be close to their self-efficacy. For example, Pajares (2003) views social comparison beliefs as a source of learners’ writing self-efficacy. Meanwhile, some studies (Bottomley, Henk, & Melnick, 1997; Neugebauer & Howard, 2015; Pajares, Johnson et al., 2007) used writing self-perception scales which include many items about learners’ general writing capability, ability comparison and malleability beliefs. In these studies, such beliefs are viewed as sources of writing self-efficacy. From a general psychological perspective, Zimmerman (2000) states that self-concept is “one of the closest constructs to self-efficacy” (p. 84). Similarly, Bong and Clark (1999) point out that despite the differences between the two constructs, they share similar within-construct aspects. While the above views indicate that self-concept and the other similar newly coined constructs (i.e., implicit, incremental and entity theories of writing) seem to be strongly related to writing self-efficacy, no decisive answers have been given yet about whether they should be assessed separately from it or not. As a construct, writing self-concept does not have a clear place yet in writing motivation literature. Pajares and Valiante’s (1999) note that writing self-concept is not “as prominent in the motivation literature as other forms of self-concept” (p. 392) remains applicable to the published research on the construct in the last twenty years. Overall, the little research reported so far about the four similar constructs and their few-item measures suggest they are not strong ones yet. Therefore, due attention should be given to researching writers’ self-concept beliefs and characterizing or identifying their 6

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M.M.M. Abdel Latif

relationship with self-efficacy at the conceptualization and measurement levels. 4. Writing outcome expectancy and achievement goal orientation Not much research has been reported on writers’ outcome expectancy and achievement goal orientation. Literature shows greater consistency in conceptualizing and measuring these two constructs as compared to the previously discussed ones. This is what will be highlighted in the following two sub-sections. 4.1. Writing outcome expectancy Outcome expectancy refers to the beliefs about the expected outcome from completing a task successfully. These beliefs influence task performance by an appraisal of the goals to be attained from successful task completion (Bandura, 1986). According to Troia et al. (2013), when learners value the purpose for writing, they will have the motive to “pay greater attention, persist longer, enjoy their involvement, and acquire more knowledge” (p. 18). In her model of educational and occupational choice, Eccles (1987) proposes that expectancy beliefs and perceived task value are associated with some variables such as gender, self-schema, and task demands. Though research on writing outcome expectancy dates back to the late 1980s, it has received little attention. The scare writing outcome expectancy studies published so far include the ones conducted by Shell et al. (1989, 1995); Pajares and Johnson (1994); Pajares and Valiante (1997, 1999, 2001), Pajares and Cheong (2003); Pajares, Valiante, and Cheong (2007), and Troia et al. (2013). Similar to writing self-concept, only a few researchers (i.e., Shell, Pajares and Troia, and their colleagues) have been interested in researching writing outcome expectancy. Shell et al. (1989, 1995) conceptualize writing outcome expectancy as the perceived importance of writing for achieving some life goals, but in their two studies they used scales with varied numbers of items. The writing outcome expectancy scale used in Shell et al.’s (1989) study consists of 20 items pertinent to the areas of employment (e.g., getting a job or advancing it), social activities (e.g., having many friends and making new ones), family life (e.g., raising children properly, and having a good family life), education (e.g., getting good school grades and completing college), and citizenship (e.g., being a good citizen and a creative person). The items of the scale used in Shell, Colvin, and Bruning’s (1995) study also reflect the same goals of life areas, but their number was reduced to six. Though Pajares and his colleagues (Pajares & Johnson, 1994; Pajares & Valiante, 1997) used Shell et al.’s (1989) scale or an adapted version of it in assessing writers’ outcome expectancy, they followed a relatively different approach in their later studies (Pajares and Cheong, 2007; Pajares & Valiante, 1999, 2001; Pajares, 2003, Pajares, Valiante et al., 2007). First, they replaced the term ‘writing outcome expectancy’ with ‘value of writing’ or ‘perceived usefulness of writing’ which is defined as the beliefs about “importance, interest, and enjoyment of writing” (Pajares & Valiante, 1999, p. 395). Second, they also used adapted shorter scales of varied item numbers. Pajares and Valiante (1999, 2001) used an 8-item scale which asks learners to rate the importance of writing for having good performance in language arts, and the extent to which they enjoy writing and are interested in it. The sample items the two researchers reported from this scale are: "Writing is a lot of fun” and “Writing stories is interesting for me” (Pajares & Valiante, 2001, p. 370). In the two studies reported by Pajares and Cheong (2007) and Pajares, Valiante et al. (2007), the 8-item scale was replaced by a 4-item one, though the outcome expectations assessed remained the same. On the other hand, Troia et al. (2013) measured task interest/value using a scale composed of five items about learners’ writing personal interest and attainment value, but no sample items from this scale were reported. Due to the above-noted scarcity of writing outcome expectancy research, no remarkable changes have occurred in the conceptualization and measurement of the construct. Bandura’s (1986) argument that self-efficacy is a stronger motivational predictor of behaviour than outcome expectancy may partially account for why writing outcome expectancy was addressed as a peripheral variable in the studies reviewed. Therefore, greater attention should be paid to conducting in-depth studies on the construct. As Troia et al. (2012) suggest, such greater research attention will help us understand how writers’ outcome expectancy influences and is influenced by other motivational variables. 4.2. Writing achievement goal orientation Learners’ achievement goal refers to their reasons, purposes or desired outcomes for doing a particular academic activity (Pintrich, 2000). The goals set for learning have a motivational impact on learners’ engagement in academic tasks. Literature also indicates the mutual interaction between self-efficacy beliefs and task goals (Elliot, 1999; Pajares et al., 2000). Generally, achievement goal orientations have been classified into the following types: a) mastery or task goals which refer to learners’ orientation towards learning and competence as an ultimate end through understanding materials and mastering tasks; and b) performance or ego goals which reflect learners’ concern with demonstrating ability, receiving social recognition, and outperforming others (performance-approach goals), or concealing lack of competence (performance-avoidance goals) (Ames, 1992; Elliot & Church, 1997). It is noteworthy that writers’ performance-avoidance goal orientation differs from their apprehension. While the former can be assessed using items such as “I do my writing assignments so others in the class won’t think I’m dumb’’ (Pajares & Cheong, 2003, p. 441) and “When I’m writing in this class, I’m trying to avoid making mistakes in front of my classmates” (MacArthur et al., 2016, p. 38), the items mirroring the latter include “I usually do my best to avoid writing English essays” and “I do not like my English essays to be evaluated” (Abdel Latif, 2015, p. 210). Compared to the other writing motivational constructs, writing achievement goal research occurred in a later stage. It started with 7

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M.M.M. Abdel Latif

the studies reported by Pajares and his colleagues (Pajares & Cheong, 2003; Pajares & Valiante, 2001; Pajares et al., 2000; Pajares, Valiante et al., 2007). A few other studies addressing the construct were published in the last 10 years, i.e. 2009–2018 (Chea & Shumow, 2017; Kaplan, Lichtinger, & Gorodetsky, 2009; Limpo & Alves, 2017; Limpo, 2018; MacArthur et al., 2016; Troia et al., 2013; Yilmaz Soylu et al., 2017). On the other hand, two studies (Han & Hiver, 2018; Lee et al., 2018) addressed ‘ideal L2 writing self’ which has been defined as learners’ “desired future images of themselves as competent L2 writers” (Han & Hiver, 2018, p. 48) or “what students want to become in writing” (Lee et al., 2018, p. 180). Though the reports of these two studies included neither the scales assessing the construct nor sample items from them, their definitions of ‘ideal L2 writing self’ clearly indicate it reflects writing mastery and/or performance-approach goals. The published measures of writing achievement goals are consistent in focusing on the three types of the construct (i.e., mastery, performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals). Pajares and his colleagues (2007, Pajares & Cheong, 2003; Pajares & Valiante, 2001; Pajares et al., 2000) used a writing achievement goal orientation scale adapted from Middleton and Midgley (1997). The scales used in the other studies published more recently were developed by Kaplan et al. (2009), MacArthur et al. (2016), and Yilmaz Soylu et al. (2017). Kaplan et al.’s scale includes 14 items, whereas the other two scales are composed of 12 ones. Troia et al. (2013) also reported using a 14-item scale for assessing the three writing achievement goal orientations, but they didn’t include their scale or any of its items. As noted, the scales developed for assessing writers’ achievement goal have also similar numbers of items. Since there has been a relative increase in the number of writing achievement goal studies reported recently, it is expected that this research area will grow in the near future. Such expected increase in research could be accompanied by further developments in writing achievement goal conceptualization and measurement. 5. Conclusion The above review shows that writing motivation is an area characterized by a wide variance in conceptualizing and measuring a number of its key constructs. As the review indicates, writers’ apprehension/attitude, anxiety, self-efficacy, outcome expectancy and achievement goal orientation are the constructs that have a clear place in writing motivation literature. While there is a consistency in the definitions and scales of writers’ outcome expectancy and achievement goals, literature is full of varied perspectives on defining and assessing writing apprehension, attitudes, anxiety and self-efficacy. Specifically, some conceptual and terminological overlap and scale construct validity problems occur in writing apprehension, attitude and anxiety research, whereas a wide variance is noted in the conceptualizations and measures of writing self-efficacy. Meanwhile, some other coined constructs do not have a clear place yet in writing motivation literature because they seem to be: a) identical to one of the above-mentioned stronger constructs (i.e., ideal writing self as compared to writing achievement goal orientation), b) close to it (i.e., writing self-concept and intelligence theory constructs as compared to writing self-efficacy), or c) indistinguishable from another less researched construct (i.e., implicit, incremental and entity theories of writing as compared to writing self-concept). Resolving the above-mentioned conceptualization and measurement problems calls for much work at the theoretical and research levels. First, there is a need for more reviews that focus particularly on addressing the thorny issues discussed above about defining and assessing writing apprehension, attitudes, anxiety, self-efficacy, and self-concept and its similar constructs. The conclusions drawn in the previous sections can be regarded as tentative and open to discussion in future reviews. With these further reviews, we could reach consensus on the optimal conceptualizations and measures of writing motivational constructs. Second, future researchers addressing one or more of writing motivational constructs need to provide answers to the following questions: - To what extent does the researched construct differ from the other similar ones (e.g., writing apprehension versus anxiety)? - Which dimension(s) or types of the construct (e.g., writing self-efficacy; writing achievement goal) do they investigate? - Is the construct labelled properly and in a way consistent with writing motivation literature (e.g., writing apprehension versus attitude or anxiety; writing self-concept versus implicit, incremental and entity theories of writing)? - Does the scale used assess the target construct validly? What is the rationale for using it? And does the way of defining and measuring the target construct allow the comparability of research findings? Providing answers to these questions could help in avoiding the conceptual and terminological overlap problems discussed above, using accurate measures in assessing the target writing motivational construct, and making the results of a particular study more generalizable and comparable to those of previous research. In line with Klassen (2002) view, it is also recommended that researchers include the full measure(s) they use in their study reports. This will make it easy to compare the items in the scales assessing a particular construct, and identify the scale construct validity. An issue that still needs due attention in future writing motivation measurement research is testing the construct validity of scales using powerful statistical methods. The construct validity of the scales developed in the studies reviewed was widely evaluated using factor analysis. None of these studies used Rasch analysis which is a robust statistical tool for testing construct validity (see Boone, 2016; Hendriks, Fyfe, Styles, Skinner, & Merriman, 2012; McNamara, Knoch, & Fan, 2019). Future studies may depend solely on Rasch analysis or combine it with factor analysis to get more valid and accurate writing motivation measures. The scale features reviewed in this paper include the types and number of items used, the writing tasks focused on, and the construct dimensionality and validity. The response format or set of scale items is beyond of the scope of the review given. According to Pajares, Hartley, and Valiante (2001), the type of response format (e.g., traditional Likert versus 0-100-point formats) can influence the predicative value of the scale. Future reviews addressing one or more of writing motivational constructs may cover this issue. 8

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M.M.M. Abdel Latif

Declaration of Competing Interest The author declares that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. References Abdel Latif, M. M. M. (2015). Sources of L2 writing apprehension: a study of Egyptian university students. Journal of Research in Reading, 38(2), 194–212. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01549.x. Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bong, M., & Clark, R. (1999). Comparison between self-concept and self-efficacy in academic motivation research. Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 139–153. https:// doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3403_1. Boone, W. (2016). Rasch analysis for instrument development: Why, when, and how? CBE-Life Sciences Education, 15(4), https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-04-0148 rm4. Boscolo, P., & Hidi, S. (2007). The multiple meanings of motivation to write. In S. Hidi, & P. Boscolo (Eds.). Writing and motivation (pp. 1–16). New York: Elsevier. Blake, R. (1976). Assessing English and language arts teachers’ attitudes toward writers and writing. The English Record, 27, 87–97. Bline, D., Lowe, D. R., Meixner, W. F., Nouri, H., & Pearce, K. (2001). A research note on the dimensionality of Daly and Miller’s writing Apprehension Scale. Written Communication, 18(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018001003. Bottomley, D. M., Henk, W. A., & Melnick, S. A. (1997). Assessing children’s views about themselves as writers using the Writer Self-Perception Scale. The Reading Teacher, 51, 286–296. Britt, M., Pribesh, S., Hinton-Johnson, K., & Gupta, A. (2018). Effect of a mindful breathing intervention on community college students’ writing apprehension and writing performance. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 42(10), 693–707. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2017.1352545. Bruning, R., Dempsey, M., Kauffman, D., McKim, C., & Zumbrunn, S. (2013). Examining dimensions of self-efficacy for writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 25–38. Burgoon, J., & Hale, J. (1983). A research note on the dimensions of communication reticence. Communication Quarterly, 31, 238–248. Charney, D., Newman, J., & Palmquist, M. (1995). “I’m just no good at writing”: Epistemological style and attitudes toward writing. Written Communication, 12(3), 298–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088395012003004. Chea, S., & Shumow, L. (2017). The relationships among writing self-efficacy, writing goal orientation, and writing achievement. In K. Kimura, & J. Middlecamp (Eds.). Asian-focused ELT research and practice: voices from the far edge (pp. 169–192). Cambodia: IDP Education (Cambodia) Ltd. Csizér, K., & Tankó, G. (2015). English majors’ self-regulatory control strategy use in academic writing and its relation to L2 motivation. Applied Linguistics, 38(3), 386–404. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv033. Cheng, Y. S. (2004). A measure of second language writing anxiety: Scale development and preliminary validation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 313–335. Cheng, Y. S., Horwitz, E., & Schallert, D. (1999). Language anxiety: Differentiating writing and speaking components. Language Learning, 49(3), 417–446. Daly, J. (1985). Writing apprehension. In M. Rose (Ed.). When a writer can’t write: Studies in writer’s block and other composing-process problems (pp. 43–82). London, New York: Guilford Press. Daly, J., & Hailey, J. (1984). Putting the situation into writing research: State and disposition as parameters of writing apprehension. In R. Beach, & L. S. Bridwell (Eds.). New directions in composition research (pp. 259–273). New York: Guilford. Daly, J., & Miller, M. D. (1975). The empirical development of an instrument to measure writing apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 9(3), 242–249. Daly, J., & Wilson, D. (1983). Writing apprehension, self-esteem, and personality. Research in the Teaching of English, 17, 327–342. Dweck, C. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Eccles, J. (1987). Gender roles and women’s achievement-related decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11(2), 135–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402. 1987.tb00781.x. Ehm, J., Lindberg, S., & Hasselhorn, M. (2014). Reading, writing, and math self-concept in elementary school children: Influence of dimensional comparison processes. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 29(2), 277–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-013-0198-x. Elliot, A. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169–179. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3. Elliot, A., & Church, M. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.218. Faigley, L., Daly, J., & Witte, S. (1981). The role of writing apprehension in writing performance and competence. The Journal of Educational Research, 75(1), 16–21. Fritzsche, B., Young, B., & Hickson, K. (2003). Individual differences in academic procrastination tendency and writing success. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1549–1557. Golombek, C., Klingsieck, K., & Scharlau, I. (2018). Assessing self-efficacy for self-regulation of academic writing: Development and validation of a scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000452. Graham, S., Schwartz, S., & MacArthur, C. (1993). Learning disabled and normally achieving students’ knowledge of writing and the composing process, attitude toward writing, and self-efficacy for students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 237–249. Graham, S., Berninger, V., & Fan, W. (2007). The structural relationship between writing attitude and writing achievement in first and third grade students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 516–536. Gungle, B., & Taylor, V. (1989). Writing apprehension and second language writers. In D. M. Johnson, & D. H. Roen (Eds.). Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 235–248). New York: Longman, Inc. Han, J., & Hiver, P. (2018). Genre-based L2 writing instruction and writing-specific psychological factors: The dynamics of change. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 44–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.03.001. Hayes, J. (2012). Modelling and remodelling writing. Written Communication, 29(3), 369–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312451260. 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). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hendriks, J., Fyfe, S., Styles, I., Skinner, S., & Merriman, G. (2012). Scale construction utilizing the Rasch unidimensional measurement model: A measurement of adolescent attitudes towards abortion. The Australasian Medical Journal, 5(5), 251–261. https://doi.org/10.4066/AMJ.2012.952. Huerta, M., Goodson, P., Beigi, M., & Chlup, D. (2017). Graduate students as academic writers: Writing anxiety, self-efficacy and emotional intelligence. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(4), 716–729. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1238881. Jones, E. (2008). Predicting performance in first-semester college basic writers: Revisiting the role of self-beliefs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 209–238. 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013200. Kavanoz, S., & Yüksel, G. (2016). Developing and validating a self-efficacy scale for scholarly writing in English. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 8(2), 71–82. Kear, D., Coffman, G., McKenna, M., & Ambrosio, A. (2000). Measuring attitude toward writing: A new tool for teachers. The Reading Teacher, 54(1), 10–23. Klassen, R. (2002). Writing in early adolescence: A review of the role of self-efficacy beliefs. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 173–203. Knudson, R. (1991). Development and use of a writing attitude survey in grades 4 to 8. Psychological Reports, 68(3), 807–816. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1991.68.3.

9

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M.M.M. Abdel Latif

807. Lee, J. (2013). Can writing attitudes and learning behavior overcome gender difference in writing? Evidence from NAEP. Written Communication, 30(2), 164–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313480313. Lee, I., Yu, S., & Liu, Y. (2018). Hong Kong secondary students’ motivation in EFL writing: A survey study. TESOL Quarterly, 52(1), 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1002/ tesq.364. Limpo, T. (2018). Development of a short measure of writing apprehension: Validity evidence and association with writing frequency, process, and performance. Learning and Instruction, 58, 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.06.001. Limpo, T., & Alves, R. (2017). Relating beliefs in writing skill malleability to writing performance: The mediating role of achievement goals and self-efficacy. Journal of Writing Research, 9(2), 97–125. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2017.09.02.01. Limpo, T., & Alves, R. (2014). Implicit theories of writing and their impact on students’ response to a SRSD intervention. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 571–590. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12042. Liu, M., & Jackson, J. (2008). An exploration of Chinese EFL learners’ unwillingness to communicate and foreign language anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 92, 71–86. MacArthur, C., Philippakos, Z., & Graham, S. (2016). A Multicomponent measure of writing motivation with basic college writers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948715583115. Mahfoodh, O. H. (2017). “I feel disappointed”: EFL university students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback. Assessing Writing, 31(1), 53–72. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.07.001. Marsh, H. (1990). The structure of academic self-concept: The marsh–Shavelson Model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 623–636. McCarthy, P., Meier, S., & Rinderer, R. (1985). Self-efficacy and writing: A different view of self-evaluation. College Composition and Communication, 36, 465–471. McNamara, T., Knoch, U., & Fan, J. (2019). Fairness, justice and language assessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Meier, S., McCarthy, P., & Schmeck, R. (1984). Validity of self-efficacy as a predictor of writing performance. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8, 107–120. Middleton, M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 710–718. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.4.710. Neugebauer, S., & Howard, E. (2015). Exploring associations among writing self-perceptions, writing abilities, and native language of English-Spanish two-way immersion students. Bilingual Research Journal, 38(3), 313–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2015.1093039. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, K. T. (2002). Writing apprehension and academic procrastination among graduate students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 92(2), 560–562. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2001.92.2.560. Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 139–158. Pajares, F., Britner, S., & Valiante, G. (2000). Relation between achievement goals and self-beliefs of middle school students in writing and science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 406–422. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1027. Pajares, F., & Cheong, Y. (2003). Achievement goal orientations in writing: A developmental perspective. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2004.06.008. Pajares, F., Hartley, J., & Valiante, G. (2001). Response format in writing self-efficacy assessment: Greater discrimination increases prediction. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33(4), 214–221. Pajares, F., & Johnson, M. J. (1994). Confidence and competence in writing: The role of writing self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, 28, 313–331. Pajares, F., Miller, M., & Johnson, M. (1999). Gender differences in writing self-beliefs of elementary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 50–61. Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (2001). Gender differences in writing motivation and achievement of middle school students: A function of gender orientation? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 366–381. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2000.1069. Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1999). Grade level and gender differences in the writing self-beliefs of middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(4), 390–405. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0995. Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1997). Influence of writing self-efficacy beliefs on the writing performance of upper elementary students. The Journal of Educational Research, 90, 353–360. Pajares, F., Johnson, J., & Usher, E. (2007). Sources of writing self-efficacy beliefs of elementary, middle, and high school students. Research in the Teaching of English, 42(1), 104–120. Pajares, F., Valiante, G., & Cheong, Y. F. (2007). Writing self-efficacy and its relation to gender, writing motivation, and writing competence: A developmental perspective. In S. Hidi, & P. Boscolo (Eds.). Motivation and writing: Research and school practice (pp. 141–162). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Phinney, M. (1991). Word processing and writing apprehension in first and second language writers. Computers and Composition, 9(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10. 1016/8755-4615(91)80039-G. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451– 502). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press. Prat-Sala, M., & Redford, P. (2010). The interplay between motivation, self-efficacy, and approaches to studying. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 283–305. Richmond, V., & Dickson-Markman, F. (1985). Validity of the writing apprehension test. Psychological Reports, 56, 255–259. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1985.56.1. 255. Riffe, D., & Stacks, D. (1988). Dimensions of writing apprehension among mass communication students. The Journalism Quarterly, 65(2), 384–391. https://doi.org/10. 1177/107769908806500218. Rose, M. (1985). When a writer can’t write: Studies in writer’s block and other composing-process problems. London, New York: Guilford Press. Sanders-Reio, J., Alexander, P., Reio, T., & Newman, I. (2014). Do students’ beliefs about writing relate to their writing self-efficacy, apprehension, and performance? Learning and Instruction, 33, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.02.001. Selfe, C. (1984). The predrafting processes of four high- and four low-apprehensive writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 18(1), 45–64. Shaver, J. (1990). Reliability and validity of measures of attitudes toward writing and toward writing with the computer. Written Communication, 7(3), 375–392. Shell, D., Colvin, C., & Bruning, R. (1995). Self-efficacy, attributions, and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: Grade-level and achievement-level differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 386–398. Shell, D., Murphy, C., & Bruning, R. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 91–100. Spielberger, C. (1983). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists’ Press. Teng, L., Sun, P., & Xu, L. (2018). Conceptualizing writing self-efficacy in English as a foreign language contexts: Scale validation through structural equation modeling. TESOL Quarterly, 52(4), 911–942. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.432. Troia, G., Harbaugh, A., Shankland, R., Wolbers, K., & Lawrence, A. (2013). Relationships between writing motivation, writing activity, and writing performance: Effects of grade, sex, and ability. Reading and Writing, 26, 17–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9379-2. Troia, G., Shankland, R., & Wolbers, K. (2012). Motivation research in writing: Theoretical and empirical considerations. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 28(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2012.632729. Waller, L., & Papi, M. (2017). Motivation and feedback: How implicit theories of intelligence predict L2 writers’ motivation and feedback orientation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.01.004. Wong, B. Y. L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., & Kuperis, S. (1997). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities and low achievers to plan, write, and revise compareand-contrast essays. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12(1), 2–15. Woodrow, L. (2011). College English writing affect: Self-efficacy and anxiety. System, 39, 510–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.10.017. Woodrow, L. (2006). Anxiety and speaking English as a second language. RELC Journal, 37, 308–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688206071315.

10

Assessing Writing xxx (xxxx) xxxx

M.M.M. Abdel Latif

Wynne, C., Guo, Y., & Wang, S. (2014). Writing anxiety groups: A creative approach for graduate students. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 9, 366–379. https:// doi.org/10.1080/15401383.2014.902343. Yilmaz Soylu, M., Zeleny, M. G., Zhao, R., Bruning, R., Dempsey, M., & Kauffman, D. (2017). Secondary students’ writing achievement goals: Assessing the mediating effects of mastery and performance goals on writing self-efficacy, affect, and writing achievement. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1406. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg. 2017.01406. Zabihi, R. (2008). The role of cognitive and affective factors in measures of L2 writing. Written Communication, 35(1), 32–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0741088317735836. Zimmerman, B. (2000). Self-Efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1016. Zimmerman, B., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845–862. Zimmerman, B., & Kitsantas, A. (2002). Acquiring writing revision and self-regulatory skill through observation and emulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 660–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.660. Zimmerman, B., & Kitsantas, A. (1999). Acquiring writing revision skill: Shifting from process to outcome self-regulatory goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 241–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.241. Muhammad M. M. Abdel Latif is currently working as an assistant professor of TESOL/applied linguistics at the College of Languages & Translation, Al Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Saudi Arabia. He has also taught at Cairo University, Egypt. His research interests include: writing motivation, L2 writing cognition, language learner processes and language teacher education. He has published in a number of ranked and well-known international journals, and his research was granted some international awards.

11